Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRR22304 Responsive email recordsFrom:Rex Steward To:Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject:590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:45:55 PM Attachments:image001.png 590 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Authorization (PB-signed).pdf Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced. Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note, how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Friday, June 5, 2015 12:37:32 PM Attachments:image001.png Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:James Papp To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:Fw: Jack House docents meeting Tuesday, July 14th, 4:30 p.m. at the Jack House; 4-story development proposal next to Jack House; piano; etc. Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 10:11:46 AM Attachments:PB Development Proposal.pdf Here is my first email to the Friends of the Jack House and Jack House Docents on the PB Companies proposal, which I sent after it was published. From: James Papp < Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 10:14 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Christine wallace; kathi settle; shelly stanwyck; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Maureen Titus Subject: Jack House docents meeting Tuesday, July 14th, 4:30 p.m. at the Jack House; 4-story development proposal next to Jack House; piano; etc. With mainstays Toni and Lois out of town this week, I'd like to try something new, and combine a Docents meeting with a Friends meeting at the Jack House on Tuesday the 14th at 4:30 p.m. There are a number of important things to discuss, and if you can't make the meeting and would like to weigh in by email, please reply to me and I'll relay your comments to the group. First, a four-story development is being proposed sixteen feet from the east boundary of the Jack Garden. There is a hearing on this before a joint meeting of the city's Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission on Monday, July 13th, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. I'm attaching the proposal. The meeting will be a chance to learn about the proposal and also to comment publicly on it. This is an early stage of hearings, but what happens at the early stage has a crucial effect on what finally happens. If you care about the Jack House and its gardens, I urge you come to the meeting. If you can't, email me, and I will relay your comments for the minutes. On a more positive note, a tuner for historic pianos, Bryan Graef, has been hired to get the 1864 Jack piano back into tune. This will take at least three sessions in the next month (the first was this morning and lasted three hours), so I've moved objects from the piano so it's easier to get the top on and off. Once the piano tuning has been set (with two more visits three months and six months down the road), it should be playable for the foreseeable future. We've been discussing with Parks and Rec programming staff introducing Victorian games to the Jack Garden to both align with their goals and promote our mission to a new audience. Croquet, lawn bowling, badminton, and fencing are some of the suggestions. Finally, our schedule with opening an exhibition in the Carriage House was upended when Parks and Rec nixed it from opening during weddings. A number of us among docents, friends, and park staff have been discussing the viability of a policy ending weddings on Sundays, so the house and park can be devoted to the community on that day. (The Dallidet Adobe limits weddings to Saturdays, and Sunday is always a visitor day). This will be another topic to discuss at the July 14th meeting. Hope to see you there! James P.S. The Jack Ranch exhibition at the History Center will be moving at the end of July to the Pioneer Museum, where it will open in late August with additional items (e.g., Howard Jack's cattle horn chair). If you don't want to drive to Paso, this is your chance to see it close to home. The History Center is open 10–4 Wednesday through Monday. From:Stanwyck, Shelly To:Cohen, Rachel; Johnson, Derek; Davidson, Doug Subject:FW: Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:40:36 PM Attachments:JHC letter to CHC and ARC.pdf Thought you all would want to be copied on this. From: James Papp [ Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Docents, Last night we had a long four-hour)and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens.As a reference point,the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.)All of our concerns are now on the agenda,as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC)and Architectural Review Commission ARC)to the developer.This was a conceptual review,"but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much.He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC.Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council.So there is a long process and I fear)fight ahead.Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC,to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response attached),and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni,Susan,Leah,Marilyn Forselles,and others for coming and showing their support.Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request,for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House:we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development,paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal,Sunday weddings,a Victorian sports program,and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least,you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two sent out Monday,I believe).There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus,and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchworkahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the currentformincludedKathiSettleonbehalfoftheJackHouseCommittee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went lastyeartoARCwithaproposalfor581Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need todoourownshadingstudy, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:James Papp To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:Fw: Preliminary observations on JHC response to PB company project Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 10:09:09 AM Here is an email written to the Jack House Committee after Rachel Cohen of the Community Development Department presented the San Luis Square project to the Jack House Committee at our Wednesday 8 July meeting, with a team from PB Companies also present to answer questions. From: James Papp < Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 8:28 PM To: kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; susan updegrove; eva ulz; Setterlund, David Subject: Preliminary observations on JHC response to PB company project Hi all, Those of you who were not at the JHC meeting Wednesday will have missed the committee's decision to draft a committee response to the proposed PB project and send Kathi and Eva to represent us at the joint CHC and ARC meeting this Monday. I think this is an existential issue for the house: once two 60-foot buildings the equivalent of six normal stories) go up next to the historic Jack Garden, we'll never get our light, view, or ambiance back. In addition, the effect of loss of light (let alone construction) on the plants is unknown. Here are some facts to help in the response: The Jack House is on San Luis Obispo's Master List of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The Jack Garden was included in the NRHP application. 1. San Luis Obispo's Community Design Guidelines, adopted by the City Council 19 Nov. 2002, state in section 4.2.B.2. New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them." Note the language "shall not," in contrast to the "should not" of most of the other guidelines, along with the explicit mention of the Jack Garden. In other words, obstructing sunlight to the Jack Garden with a building is expressly forbidden. There is no question the 60-foot sheer wall of 581 Higuera, 5 feet from the Jack Garden property line and overlapping the garden by 15 feet at its edge, will obstruct sunlight to the gardens and obstruct views of sky and surrounding trees. The concept view of it from the garden that we were briefly shown was positioned from under a tree so does not represent what it would look like from most of the garden, i.e., a sixty-foot-high angular industrial-style brick building with no setback and no screening, as PB proposes to remove our NE corner Southern California Black Walnut tree. 570 Marsh will reach 56 feet. Its 18-foot-high awning (the equivalent of a two-story residential house) appears to be 4 feet from the property line. The 30-foot-high first and second floors (the equivalent of a three-story building) is set back 16 feet from the property line in the plan. The 42-foot-high thrid floor (a four-floor equivalent) is described in the PDF plan distributed to CHC and forwarded by me as being set back 22 feet from the property line, but the printed plan does not show any setback. The 56-foot-high fourth floor (a five- or six-floor equivalent: think the Anderson Hotel) is described as having a 34-foot-setback from the property line, but this again is not reflected in the printed plans, which shows something closer to 20. Even if we accept the PDF versus the printed plans, according to my calculations, the shadow cast by 570 Marsh would, even at 9:30 a.m. on the winter solstice, entirely cover the Jack Park up to the Jack House. (The winter solstice is used in the guidelines elsewhere for regulations of light for sidewalks on the north side of Marsh Street.) On summer solstice the effect would be less extreme, shadowing about 40 percent of the space between the Jack House and property line at 8 a.m. The rest of the year would fall in between, but the main Jack lawn would be something to be enjoyed only in the late morning or afternoon, especially as visitors tend to gravitate to the gazebo to rest or eat. A note here that figure 2 in the PDF proposal misrepresents the height of the buildings [lower] and their distance from the Jack House [farther]; flip the 125-foot measure, and the buildings should reach about halfway, which they don't; also, 570 Marsh is shown as being lower than 590, but the plans list them both at 56 feet.) 2. Zoning for the area is capped at 50 feet. PB is asking for a variance to go to 56 feet and 60 feet. 3. The Community Design Guidelines enjoin developers to (1.4.A.4.) "design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples of massing, scale, and land uses when a site is located in a notable area of the city (for example, the downtown)"; (1.4.A.5.) "protect the scale and character of historic neighborhoods" note, not just formal historic zoning districts); (3.1.A.2.) "avoid 'boxy' structures with large, flat wall planes" (this describes 581 Higuera). Additionallly: 3.4.C.1.c.) "Multistory buildings should not be placed adjacent to residential private open space areas (e.g., rear yards)" (this is analogous to the public open space of the Jack Garden); (4.2.B.1.b.) "New buildings that are significantly taller … than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions); (4.2.B.1.c.) "For new buildings adjacent to buildings included on the city's Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings"; (5.3.B.) An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood" (5.3.C.) "The height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures"; (5.4.A.1.) "New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor and outdoor living space of adjacent units" (again, analogous to the privacy and serenity of the Jack Garden). Note: no other building on the block is more than 2 stories. The PB project would be 4 stories or an effective 6 in height. 4. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section." The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance." Notably, when National Register of Historic Places status was applied for and received for the Jack House, the garden was included in the application as being covered with many mature trees planted by Nellie Jack, who was particularly fond of trees and exotic shrubs." 5. The Southern California Black Walnut Tree PB companies proposes to chop down the huge California Black Walnut tree in the northwest corner of the Jack Garden, as its canopy extends over 20 feet into their property, which would preclude placing 581 Higuera 5 feet from the property line. This is one of our historic trees, mature and with a canopy topping the carriage house and visible from the road when the Jack House was donated and clearly of a maturity to have been planted by Nellie Jack. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Hudson, Jake Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:FW: San Luis Square Date:Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:27:21 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Jake- Can you help me address John’s questions about the requirement of the traffic study for San Luis Square? Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org On Jun 26, 2015, at 2:53 PM, John Belsher <john@pbcompanies.co> wrote: Doug and Marcus: I am under the impression that the City is requiring a traffic study for the San Luis Square project. We are unsure why this is being required given the recent LUCE update and the City actions exempting other in-fill projects recently. By way of example, I am aware of the recent action on the Junction project, which included the following finding: Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 ( In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits, consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses, and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. I would appreciate a response explaining the City’s seemingly opposite position for this project? John Belsher PB Companies, LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)540-3330 805) 549-8343 direct From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Hudson, Jake Subject:Fwd: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:18:50 AM Attachments:image001.png No, right? Sent from a Google Android device, please excuse errors. From:Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler, Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:James Papp To:Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject:Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13:24 PM Attachments:JHC letter to CHC and ARC.pdf Dear Docents, Last night we had a long (four-hour) and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens. (As a reference point, the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.) All of our concerns are now on the agenda, as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC) and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to the developer. This was a "conceptual review," but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much. He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC. Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council. So there is a long process and (I fear) fight ahead. Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC, to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response (attached), and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni, Susan, Leah, Marilyn Forselles, and others for coming and showing their support. Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request, for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House: we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development, paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal, Sunday weddings, a Victorian sports program, and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least, you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two (sent out Monday, I believe). There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus, and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchwork ahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the currentformincludedKathiSettleonbehalfoftheJackHouseCommittee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went lastyeartoARCwithaproposalfor581Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need todoourownshadingstudy, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Cohen, Rachel; Joe Fernandez Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:02:20 AM Attachments:image001.png Rachel, Have we heard from the applicant yet for their traffic study? Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 3:36 PM To: Joe Fernandez Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Joe- I have not heard if the applicant has submitted payment for the traffic study yet. I will check with Public Works and will get back to you with a more definitive answer. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe@cctransconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:52 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Rachel, It looks like Bryan is out of the office,so I thought I’d check in with you on the status of this project.Has the applicant submitted payment for the traffic study?If so we’d like to schedule the traffic counts. Thanks, Joe Joe Fernandez,PE,AICP Central Coast Transportation Consulting 805)316-0101 www.cctransconsulting.com From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,June 5,2015 12:38 PM To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Joe Fernandez Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2015 3:35:36 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Joe- I have not heard if the applicant has submitted payment for the traffic study yet. I will check with Public Works and will get back to you with a more definitive answer. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe@cctransconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:52 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Rachel, It looks like Bryan is out of the office,so I thought I’d check in with you on the status of this project.Has the applicant submitted payment for the traffic study?If so we’d like to schedule the traffic counts. Thanks, Joe Joe Fernandez,PE,AICP Central Coast Transportation Consulting 805)316-0101 www.cctransconsulting.com From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,June 5,2015 12:38 PM To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Joe To:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, July 2, 2015 3:04:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bryan- any update on this? Thanks Joe From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 12:38 PM To: coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well. The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:54 PM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced. Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note, how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Rex Steward To:Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Friday, June 5, 2015 12:36:42 PM Attachments:image001.png Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well. The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:54 PM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced. Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note, how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:53:35 PM Attachments:image001.png Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Joe Fernandez To:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Monday, June 1, 2015 1:41:27 PM Attachments:image001.png Bryan, I have the traffic count folks in the area this week- please let me know as soon as you receive payment and I’ll add this project’s counts while they’re in town if possible. Thanks Joe From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:36 AM To: Rex Steward Cc: Hudson, Jake; Cohen, Rachel; coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Thank you Rex. I will notify the consultant and they will begin work upon receipt of payment for the impact study services. Jake will be able to answer any questions regarding the Bonetti Ranch impact study. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced. Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note, how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Rex Steward Cc:Hudson, Jake; Cohen, Rachel; coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Friday, May 29, 2015 8:36:00 AM Attachments:image001.png Thank you Rex. I will notify the consultant and they will begin work upon receipt of payment for the impact study services. Jake will be able to answer any questions regarding the Bonetti Ranch impact study. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: 0 Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Wheeler, Bryan; Joe Fernandez Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:05:08 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bryan- I have not heard anything from the applicant since the July 13th meeting. I can reach out to them if that would be helpful. Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:02 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Joe Fernandez Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Rachel, Have we heard from the applicant yet for their traffic study? Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 3:36 PM To: Joe Fernandez Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Joe- I have not heard if the applicant has submitted payment for the traffic study yet. I will check with Public Works and will get back to you with a more definitive answer. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe@cctransconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:52 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Rachel, It looks like Bryan is out of the office,so I thought I’d check in with you on the status of this project.Has the applicant submitted payment for the traffic study?If so we’d like to schedule the traffic counts. Thanks, Joe Joe Fernandez,PE,AICP Central Coast Transportation Consulting 805)316-0101 www.cctransconsulting.com From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,June 5,2015 12:38 PM To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:LaFreniere, Matt To:Rice, Jennifer Cc:Coscia, Anthony Subject:RE: Bonetti Ranch TIS Date:Thursday, June 18, 2015 10:15:57 AM Attachments:2015 06 09 - Bonetti Ranch TIS - Service Authorization (Signed).pdf image001.png Thank you, Jennifer. I’ll let you know. Tony, please let Jennifer know if you end up receiving these. Thank you, Matt From: Rice, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 10:13 AM To: LaFreniere, Matt Subject: FW: Bonetti Ranch TIS Hello Matt, Just a heads up—do you mind letting me know once PB Companies comes in to pay this fee for a Transportation Impact Study? (I am assuming you will process the payment?) I just want to make sure that I know right away so that I can move forward with this work once they have paid. Thanks! Jennifer Rice Transportation Assistant Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E jrice@slocity.org T 805.781.7058 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 5:45 PM To: Rice, Jennifer; Carloni, Marcus Cc: Randy Alonzo; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch TIS Hey Jennifer, Thanks for the prompt turnaround on the part of the City.See attached for the signed service authorization form for the Bonetti Ranch traffic impact study.We’ll bring the fees in as soon as they are available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Rice,Jennifer mailto:jrice@slocity.org] Sent:Monday,June 8,2015 12:23 PM To:Rex Steward;Carloni,Marcus Cc:Randy Alonzo;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:Bonetti Ranch TIS Hello Rex, Proposals for the Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Transportation Impact Study (TIS) were received this past Friday, June 5th. Attached is a copy of the TIS scope that was sent to our on-call consultants, Omni Means’ proposal, and the Authorization from the City. If you accept the fees, please sign the authorization and return it to the City along with a check for the amount and I will have Omni Means move forward on the Transportation Impact Study. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jennifer Rice Transportation Assistant Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E jrice@slocity.org T 805.781.7058 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:01 PM To: Hudson, Jake; Rice, Jennifer Cc: Carloni, Marcus; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch TIS Thanks for the update Jake. Jennifer,we’ll keep an eye out for the scope,bid breakdown,and authorization form from you. What is the cutoff date for the bid solicitation and when should we expect these items? Thanks ahead of time and have a good weekend, Rex From:Hudson,Jake mailto:jhudson@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:30 PM To:Rex Steward Cc:Carloni,Marcus;Randy Alonzo;Rice,Jennifer Subject:RE:Bonetti Ranch TIS I have assigned this to Jennifer Rice on my staff, she can get you whatever info you need. Looks like the scope is done and she is getting quotes from our on-call traffic consultants. From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:28 PM To: Hudson, Jake Cc: Carloni, Marcus; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch TIS Hey Jake, Checking in on the status of the updated TIS scope for Bonetti Ranch.We expect this to be the critical path item for Final ARC processing and want to make sure we get the process kicked off as soon as possible.Again,let me know when we should expect this from you and if we can help in any way. Thank you, Rex From:Rex Steward Sent:Friday,May 29,2015 5:03 PM To:Hudson,Jake Cc:Carloni,Marcus;Randy Alonzo randy@pbcompanies.co) Subject:Bonetti Ranch TIS Hey Jake, Just checking in to see how the TIS scope is coming for Bonetti Ranch let us know when we should expect to see it and if you need any additional information in the meantime. Thanks and have a good weekend, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,May 29,2015 8:36 AM To:Rex Steward Cc:Hudson,Jake;Cohen,Rachel;coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Thank you Rex. I will notify the consultant and they will begin work upon receipt of payment for the impact study services. Jake will be able to answer any questions regarding the Bonetti Ranch impact study. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:John Belsher To:Davidson, Doug Cc:Ryan Petetit; Carloni, Marcus; Johnson, Derek; Dunsmore, Phil Subject:RE: Bonetti Ranch Date:Monday, June 29, 2015 11:08:04 AM Attachments:image001.png I am advised our submittal of the “incomplete” items will occur today, including the historical report revisions. I am glad to hear that the CHC agenda availability is not holding up this project. As we discussed, it makes sense to have a “conceptual” review at CHC so as to inform the CEQA document. The sooner the better. John Belsher PB Companies, LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)540-3330 805) 549-8343 direct From: Davidson, Doug [mailto:ddavidson@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:01 AM To: John Belsher Cc: Ryan Petetit; Carloni, Marcus; Johnson, Derek; Dunsmore, Phil Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch John, it is not the CHC agendas which are preventing the project from being scheduled for the CHC. As discussed in the 06/25/2015 email from Marcus, the project was deemed incomplete on May 14th, a resubmittal is yet to be received, and the project has thus not been scheduled for hearings. Furthermore, a number of the completeness items indicated that insufficient information was provided in the “historic report” (Project Impact Analysis dated March 2015) which is the important element for the CHC, whether it be for conceptual or final. Once the completeness items are addressed with a complete resubmittal (in response to the completeness letter), a CHC Conceptual review can move forward to the CHC without completion of the environmental document (if needed), however, this would necessitate another CHC meeting for the CHC to make a final recommendation to the ARC with complete materials. Also, as indicated in Marcus’s email, the CHC is required to consider the environmental document (if needed) in making a recommendation to the ARC (CEQA Guidelines 15074). Please address all the items in the completeness letter and include a revised historic report. Getting the application deemed complete is the critical step now. Once we have received a resubmittal that addresses all the comments in the Incompleteness letter, we will issue you a letter deeming the application complete, determine the proper level of environmental review, and provide a hearing schedule. This is an exciting, unique project that we are looking forward to bringing to the community in the public forums. To do so, we need all the pertinent information to address City policies and bring a complete package to the Advisory Bodies and public. Doug Davidson Deputy Director Community Development - Development Review Community Development Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ddavidson@slocity.org T 805.781.7177 slocity.org From: John Belsher [mailto:john@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:38 AM To: Davidson, Doug Cc: Ryan Petetit; Carloni, Marcus; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch Doug, I just spoke with Phil and he is checking on the agenda for July CHC. John Belsher PB Companies, LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)540-3330 805) 549-8343 direct From: Davidson, Doug [mailto:ddavidson@slocity.org] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:30 AM To: John Belsher Cc: Ryan Petetit; Carloni, Marcus; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch John, we’ll get back to you shortly. Thanks From: John Belsher [mailto:john@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:31 AM To: Davidson, Doug Cc: Ryan Petetit; Carloni, Marcus; Johnson, Derek Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch Doug, I have a call into you but no luck reaching you as yet. I am not sure if the issue of scheduling the Bonetti Ranch project for CHC has been completely addressed. We are willing to label the CHC as “conceptual” so that we can proceed with CHC review prior to completion of an environmental document. As your staff pointed out in Marcus’ email of last week, CHC may inform the CEQA process. In my view, CHC is advisory anyway. It does not require nor take CEQA action. Our discussions with staff have indicated we would be set for CHC once we completed our historic report. That report was complete March 18. It is now July and we are apparently being shut out of that agenda. I appreciate that the City is holding a joint CHC/ARC meeting in July on the San Luis Square applications (yet to be officially confirmed?) As we are now seeing more and more downtown development, our processes are resulting in the City having CHC dictate the timing of development review. If so, then it needs to have that body meet at least twice monthly. Otherwise you are creating a bottleneck and cannot provide the input you need to timely process development applications. I think everyone, including the CHC is anxious to move the Bonetti Ranch along. Losing a month due to agenda crowding is not an acceptable excuse in our view. The Staff and the CHC need to review whatever is in the pipeline and get the input it needs to advance these projects. John Belsher PB Companies, LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)540-3330 805) 549-8343 direct From: Davidson, Doug [mailto:ddavidson@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 5:18 PM To: John Belsher Cc: Ryan Petetit; Carloni, Marcus Subject: RE: Bonetti Ranch John, we will reply to your email and the letter sent to Derek from Ryan, however for now, please clarify if your team is proposing conceptual CHC or final review. It is our understanding that final review is proposed. Please confirm. Thanks From: John Belsher [mailto:john@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:18 PM To: Davidson, Doug Cc: Ryan Petetit Subject: Bonetti Ranch Doug, as you may know we are seeking to have a July 27 hearing of the CHC on the Bonetti Ranch project. Marcus is in a position to set this hearing pending receipt of some additional plan materials which we can easily produce by this Friday. We are informed today that the City now expects completion of environmental review prior to a hearing at the CHC. I disagree this is a requirement legally or practically. The CHC as we all know is an advisory body. No CEQA document is required for an advisory hearing. In fact, CHC input is often a primary contributor toward environmental determinations. For that matter, numerous ARC conceptual reviews take place without an environmental document. This makes sense as well since the conceptual hearings often refine project descriptions which are then used to prepare CEQA documents. Please review this matter as soon as you are able as a decision to proceed must be made by Monday of this next week, according to Marcus. John Belsher PB Companies, LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)540-3330 805) 549-8343 direct From:Ansolabehere, Jon To:James Papp Bcc:Murry, Kim Subject:RE: Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 11:53:34 AM Attachments:image001.png James, Thank you for your e-mails. You are obviously very passionate about these issues, which is great. I think it would be best to talk in person. Unfortunately, I cannot meet today so let me know when you are available once you are back from Santa Cruz. Jon From: James Papp [ Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:42 AM To: Ansolabehere, Jon Subject: Re: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Jon, Attached are my preparatory notes for the joint CHC ARC meeting 13 July,written after I had analyzed the proposal and talked to interested parties but before the meeting.During the meeting,hearing additional information from the applicant,I cut some of these comments out from my oral comments,as they had been dealt with,but I did email this version to Ken Schwartz after the meeting. Ken referenced my analysis of the project in a letter to CHC and ARC members before the meeting.Whether he was forwarded one of my emails to the Docents and Friends or my email to the JHC,I don't know.I had not communicated directly with Ken till he copied me his letter to the CHC and ARC upon sending it to the Community Development Department a few days before the meeting. On rereading your excerpts from the Nasha v. City of LA,some questions occur to me. 1.What was the timeline of the Planning Commission decision in that case,and was this a factor in the court's judgment?In the case of San Luis Square,once the proposal was published and also presented to JHC,I informed interested parties of my analysis of its adherence to the Community Design Guidelines.After the first hearing and directions being given by ARC and CHC for modifications,I expressed to Docents and Friends that it would be necessary to fight for those modifications.That is an interest of Docents and Friends but also of CHC and ARC.I also discussed modifications to awnings,for instance)with John directly after the meeting. 2.Was the nature of the opinion a factor?Lucente was concerned about a wildlife corridor and presumably against the Multiview project being built at all.I'm in favor of San Luis Square's adherence to existing guidelines and have never advocated against the project itself, in fact I'm in favor of it—provided it follows the rules. 3.Was a public newsletter rather than private emails a factor?Or does a group email count as a newsletter?Putting all committee members'email correspondence,snail mail correspondence,telephone communication,and person-to-person communication under surveillance for opinions is going to be a slippery slope.The practical result will be less transparency.I have to say,I'm the only committee member or commissioner I've encountered who on your advice)ever bothers to state my affiliations and possible conflicts in meetings,and everyone else looks surprised when I do. 4.Was the LA City Planning Commission making a decision?As a committee rather than commission,CHC only comments and has no decision-making power. All that said,I think the decision in Nasha is problematic.Building review commissions or committees are not judicial but political bodies,appointed by councils that are also political bodies.They exist precisely to represent the interests of citizens or the general public and to serve as a governor on the vested interests of permanent staff and the financial interests of private parties.CHC's bylaws inlcude,teritiarily stated,1.c.)commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community cultural resources"but also,primarily stated,1.a) helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects,"which is what I do as Jack House Docents and Friends president.The CHC is,by its own bylaws,partial to resource preservation and partial to public interest.As for the Jack Gardens,it would be hard to find anyone in a small town impartial to the issue of preservation of a high-profile public space in the town center and impossible to find anyone uninvolved,as it is a publicly held resource,as well as San Luis Obispo's first public preservation project.We happen currently to have a majority of members on the CHC currently with close ties to the house,one of whom also has close ties to PB Companies. Early August is fine with me to meet,but best to have this worked out as soon as possible,e.g. if the decision is made that I can still be involved in the CHC's comments but would have to modify my outside communication,etc.We can always talk by phone before then.Once again, James From:Ansolabehere,Jon JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent:Friday,July 17,2015 10:19 AM To:James Papp Cc:Johnson,Derek;Murry,Kim;Leveille,Brian Subject:RE:Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House;this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr. Papp, How about the first week of August? Jon From: James Papp [ Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:43 PM To: Ansolabehere, Jon Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: Re: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Jon, Thanks for your email.This clearly should be worked out,and whichever way the City Attorney's office decides it is fine with me personally,though philosophically I have a particular view,as you'll see if you read all the way through.I'll cover for your benefit and the others copied)all the bases here,as it's useful to lay issues out in writing;forward to you all other emails I've written on the topic à la Benghazi);and look forward to meeting you about it.Would Friday the 16th work?I'll be in New York all next week and Santa Cruz for much of the week after.My number is 1.As you know,I emailed to Brian to forward to the City Attorney before the July 13th meeting my status as Friends of the Jack House president,Jack House Docents president,and ex officio nonvoting)Jack House Committee member,as well as development chair at the History Center,in which capacity I helped organize an event to which John Belsher contributed though it did not benefit me directly,it benefited an organization in which I am interested).City Attorney determined I had no conflict based on personal financial interest). 2.At the Monday meeting I also publicly revealed all these statuses as well as my status as a friend of John Belsher's.In full disclosure,I also revealed that PB Companies had offered 250,000 to the Jack House if the project was built,which would potentially cause a conflict in my position as a formal supporter of the house,though not providing me any personal financial benefit. 3.The Jack House Committee has represented an opinion to the CHC and ARC on what it believes are the legalities of the proposed project.As a nonvoting member of the committee,I was able to vote neither for nor against this opinion,but I was part of the discussion and informed it with my analysis of the project as it had been presented to the JHC and my understanding of city guidelines. 4.Naturally the Docents and the Friends of the Jack House are going to have an interest in the project,as it affects the public resource they are dedicated to,and as their president,I have to inform,coordinate,and facilitate their individual and shared views and express my views as to 1)the current project proposal's conformation to city guidelines and 2)the process by which that is determined and how people or organizations interested in the process may influence it. 5.My communication to the Docents,Friends,Jack House Committee and everyone else interested has been the same,which is also what I expressed at the meeting on Monday night both as part of CHC deliberations and in subsequent conversation with John:that,analyzing the project proposal in its current form,it appears to me to violate certain specific sections of the Community Design Guidelines,and that everyone who has an interest has the right and responsibility to express their conclusion.Hence I encouraged Docents and Friends members to communicate to the CHC and ARC for the 13 July meeting but did not tell them what they should say. 6.At a subsequent 15 July meeting of Friends and Docents I chaired,the two groups tried to reach consensus on their views and how they should proceed to express them and bring them to the attention of PB Companies,CHC,ARC,the City Council,and the public. 7.FYI,I am,both personally and as a CHC member,neither in favor of nor against the project, indeed I hope something will be built at 570 and 590 Marsh and 581 Higuera,and I am as much in favor of John building it as anyone else,and have discussed with him privately the potential paseo to the Jack Gardens.But I believe anything built must conform to the city's Community Design Guidelines and CEQA, which my duty as a CHC member compels me to analyze and apply.I presume everyone on CHC and ARC,in the Community Development Department,and at PB Companies also wants the project to conform to the guidelines and CEQA,although I am not sure all these parties read the guidelines with as much attention or reach the same conclusions)as I do.This is the gloves-off fight I'll undertake and the mat that I'll go to on this and every project that comes before CHC,whether or not it has anything to do with a private property,a public accommodation,or a public accommodation e.g.,the Jack House)to which I have a formal connection. 8.I believe this is what citizen representative committees are for and why we're appointed by elected officials,very much political animals,who temporarily and conditionally cede us their powers.If I were president of the local Republicans or Democrats I would equally have views on growth or planning or what have you,and I would urge my organization's members to fight for their opinions.As well,as CHC members,we are charged with raising public interest and involvement in issues of cultural heritage. 9.In other words,my desire to apply the guidelines and promote community input into this process perceiving that without community input the guidelines are sometimes not rigorously applied)is equal and,I believe,identical as a CHC member,as Friends of the Jack House president,as Jack House Docents president,and as a Jack House Committee member. My expression to Ken Schwartz that,having fulfilled my deliberative function as a CHC member by analyzing a project proposal for its conformance to guidelines),I can fight for that conformance as a community leader as well,is not a chronological expression or an expression of exclusive roles.As a CHC member,I will fight for the guidelines to be enforced,and I want to encourage interested citizens to fight for that,whatever their conclusion.E.g., Chuck Crotser, who I know is in favor of the project proposal in its current form, has been included in all my Friends and Docents emails (he is a member of the Friends) and hence encouraged by me to fight for his views, too. As I say,however,if your office feels this view represents a conflict,I have no objection to recusal though the majority of the current CHC is involved with PB or the Jack House in one way or another,and recusing us all would be awkward;it is,as you know,a small and opinionated town). James From:Ansolabehere,Jon JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday,July 16,2015 4:40 PM To: Cc:Johnson,Derek;Murry,Kim;Leveille,Brian Subject:FW:Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House;this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr.Papp, I wanted to write you regarding your e-mail below and express my concern about your future participation in the CHC as it relates to this project.The underlying reason for my concern is that,in the quasi-judicial setting like a use permit),applicants have a due process right to an impartial decision maker and when there is evidence that one of those decision makers has an actual bias such that the person could not act as a reasonably impartial,non-involved reviewer,”then there is a conflict of interest.For example,in the case of Nasha v. City of Los Angeles,2004)125 CA 4th 470,the court of appeal determined that a developer’s procedural due process rights were violated because a one of the planning commissioners had an unacceptable probability of actual bias”regarding the proposed project.Specifically,in that case,a planning commission member authored a newsletter that strongly opposed a project that was going to come before the commission on appeal.The newsletter stated,in pertinent part: Multiview Drive Project Threat To Wildlife Corridor [¶] A proposed project taking five legal lots totaling 3.8 acres for five proposed large homes with swimming pools served by a common driveway off Multiview Drive is winding its way through the Planning process.... [¶] After wildlife leaves Briar Summit heading eastward they must either head south towards Mt. Olympus or north to the slopes above Universal City. The Multiview Drive site is an absolutely crucial habitat corridor. Please contact Paul Edelman with the Conservancy at 310/ ... or Mark Hennessy who lives adjacent to the project at 323/ ... if you have any questions.” Id at 484. The court determined that: Contrary to the position taken by Lucente, the newsletter article was not merely informational. The article clearly advocated a position against the project, which it characterized as a “threat to wildlife corridor.”Lucente's authorship of the newsletter article gave rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bias and was sufficient to preclude Lucente from serving as a “reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.” [Citations] Lucente clearly should have recused himself from hearing this matter. His participation in the appeal to the Planning Commission requires the Commission's decision be vacated.Id. This is not to say that a decision maker can’t express an opinion on a proposed project,and there are some cases which further qualify this issue,however,decision makers must be careful regarding their communications and must be sure to remain truly impartial regarding any decision which may come before them.Before I can say whether or not I think you might have a conflict of interest,I would like to know if the e-mail below is the extent of your communications regarding the proposed project.If you would like to meet and discuss this, please let me know.Thanks you.Jon Jon Ansolabehere Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E JAnsolabehere@slocity.org slocity.org From: James Papp [ Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Docents, Last night we had a long four-hour)and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens.As a reference point,the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.)All of our concerns are now on the agenda,as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC)and Architectural Review Commission ARC)to the developer.This was a conceptual review,"but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much.He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC.Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council.So there is a long process and I fear)fight ahead.Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC,to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response attached),and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni,Susan,Leah,Marilyn Forselles,and others for coming and showing their support.Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request,for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House:we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development,paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal,Sunday weddings,a Victorian sports program,and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least,you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two sent out Monday,I believe).There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus,and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchworkahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the current form included Kathi Settle on behalf of the Jack House Committee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went lastyeartoARCwithaproposalfor581Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need to do our own shading study, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:James Papp To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:Re: Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 11:42:27 AM Attachments:image001.png CHC ARC PB San Luis Square comments.docx Dear Jon, Attached are my preparatory notes for the joint CHC ARC meeting 13 July, written after I had analyzed the proposal and talked to interested parties but before the meeting. During the meeting, hearing additional information from the applicant, I cut some of these comments out from my oral comments, as they had been dealt with, but I did email this version to Ken Schwartz after the meeting. Ken referenced my analysis of the project in a letter to CHC and ARC members before the meeting. Whether he was forwarded one of my emails to the Docents and Friends or my email to the JHC, I don't know. I had not communicated directly with Ken till he copied me his letter to the CHC and ARC upon sending it to the Community Development Department a few days before the meeting. On rereading your excerpts from the Nasha v. City of LA, some questions occur to me. 1. What was the timeline of the Planning Commission decision in that case, and was this a factor in the court's judgment? In the case of San Luis Square, once the proposal was published and also presented to JHC, I informed interested parties of my analysis of its adherence to the Community Design Guidelines. After the first hearing and directions being given by ARC and CHC for modifications, I expressed to Docents and Friends that it would be necessary to fight for those modifications. That is an interest of Docents and Friends but also of CHC and ARC. I also discussed modifications (to awnings, for instance) with John directly after the meeting. 2. Was the nature of the opinion a factor? Lucente was concerned about a wildlife corridor and presumably against the Multiview project being built at all. I'm in favor of San Luis Square's adherence to existing guidelines and have never advocated against the project itself, in fact I'm in favor of it—provided it follows the rules. 3. Was a public newsletter rather than private emails a factor? Or does a group email count as a newsletter? Putting all committee members' email correspondence, snail mail correspondence, telephone communication, and person-to-person communication under surveillance for opinions is going to be a slippery slope. The practical result will be less transparency. I have to say, I'm the only committee member or commissioner I've encountered who (on your advice) ever bothers to state my affiliations and possible conflicts in meetings, and everyone else looks surprised when I do. 4. Was the LA City Planning Commission making a decision? As a committee rather than commission, CHC only comments and has no decision-making power. All that said, I think the decision in Nasha is problematic. Building review commissions or committees are not judicial but political bodies, appointed by councils that are also political bodies. They exist precisely to represent the interests of citizens or the general public and to serve as a governor on the vested interests of permanent staff and the financial interests of private parties. CHC's bylaws inlcude, teritiarily stated, (1.c.) "commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community cultural resources" but also, primarily stated, (1.a) helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects," which is what I do as Jack House Docents and Friends president. The CHC is, by its own bylaws, partial to resource preservation and partial to public interest. As for the Jack Gardens, it would be hard to find anyone in a small town impartial to the issue of preservation of a high-profile public space in the town center and impossible to find anyone uninvolved, as it is a publicly held resource, as well as San Luis Obispo's first public preservation project. We happen currently to have a majority of members on the CHC currently with close ties to the house, one of whom also has close ties to PB Companies. Early August is fine with me to meet, but best to have this worked out as soon as possible, e.g. if the decision is made that I can still be involved in the CHC's comments but would have to modify my outside communication, etc. We can always talk by phone before then. Once again, James From: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 10:19 AM To: James Papp Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: RE: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr. Papp, How about the first week of August? Jon From: James Papp [ Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:43 PM To: Ansolabehere, Jon Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: Re: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Jon, Thanks for your email. This clearly should be worked out, and whichever way the City Attorney's office decides it is fine with me personally, though philosophically I have a particular view, as you'll see if you read all the way through. I'll cover (for your benefit and the others copied) all the bases here, as it's useful to lay issues out in writing; forward to you all other emails I've written on the topic (à la Benghazi); and look forward to meeting you about it. Would Friday the 16th work? I'll be in New York all next week and Santa Cruz for much of the week after. My number is 1. As you know, I emailed to Brian to forward to the City Attorney before the July 13th meeting my status as Friends of the Jack House president, Jack House Docents president, and ex officio nonvoting) Jack House Committee member, as well as development chair at the History Center, in which capacity I helped organize an event to which John Belsher contributed (though it did not benefit me directly, it benefited an organization in which I am interested). City Attorney determined I had no conflict (based on personal financial interest). 2. At the Monday meeting I also publicly revealed all these statuses as well as my status as a friend of John Belsher's. In full disclosure, I also revealed that PB Companies had offered 250,000 to the Jack House if the project was built, which would potentially cause a conflict in my position as a formal supporter of the house, though not providing me any personal financial benefit. 3. The Jack House Committee has represented an opinion to the CHC and ARC on what it believes are the legalities of the proposed project. As a nonvoting member of the committee, I was able to vote neither for nor against this opinion, but I was part of the discussion and informed it with my analysis of the project as it had been presented to the JHC and my understanding of city guidelines. 4. Naturally the Docents and the Friends of the Jack House are going to have an interest in the project, as it affects the public resource they are dedicated to, and as their president, I have to inform, coordinate, and facilitate their individual and shared views and express my views as to 1) the current project proposal's conformation to city guidelines and (2) the process by which that is determined and how people or organizations interested in the process may influence it. 5. My communication to the Docents, Friends, Jack House Committee and everyone else interested has been the same, which is also what I expressed at the meeting on Monday night both as part of CHC deliberations and in subsequent conversation with John: that, analyzing the project proposal in its current form, it appears to me to violate certain specific sections of the Community Design Guidelines, and that everyone who has an interest has the right and responsibility to express their conclusion. Hence I encouraged Docents and Friends members to communicate to the CHC and ARC for the 13 July meeting but did not tell them what they should say. 6. At a subsequent 15 July meeting of Friends and Docents I chaired, the two groups tried to reach consensus on their views and how they should proceed to express them and bring them to the attention of PB Companies, CHC, ARC, the City Council, and the public. 7. FYI, I am, both personally and as a CHC member, neither in favor of nor against the project, indeed I hope something will be built at 570 and 590 Marsh and 581 Higuera, and I am as much in favor of John building it as anyone else, and have discussed with him privately the potential paseo to the Jack Gardens. But I believe anything built must conform to the city's Community Design Guidelines and CEQA, which my duty as a CHC member compels me to analyze and apply. I presume everyone on CHC and ARC, in the Community Development Department, and at PB Companies also wants the project to conform to the guidelines and CEQA, although I am not sure all these parties read the guidelines with as much attention (or reach the same conclusions) as I do. This is the gloves-off fight I'll undertake and the mat that I'll go to on this and every project that comes before CHC, whether or not it has anything to do with a private property, a public accommodation, or a public accommodation (e.g., the Jack House) to which I have a formal connection. 8. I believe this is what citizen representative committees are for and why we're appointed by elected officials, very much political animals, who temporarily and conditionally cede us their powers. If I were president of the local Republicans or Democrats I would equally have views on growth or planning or what have you, and I would urge my organization's members to fight for their opinions. As well, as CHC members, we are charged with raising public interest and involvement in issues of cultural heritage. 9. In other words, my desire to apply the guidelines and promote community input into this process (perceiving that without community input the guidelines are sometimes not rigorously applied) is equal and, I believe, identical as a CHC member, as Friends of the Jack House president, as Jack House Docents president, and as a Jack House Committee member. My expression to Ken Schwartz that, having fulfilled my deliberative function as a CHC member (by analyzing a project proposal for its conformance to guidelines), I can fight for that conformance as a community leader as well, is not a chronological expression or an expression of exclusive roles. As a CHC member, I will fight for the guidelines to be enforced, and I want to encourage interested citizens to fight for that, whatever their conclusion. E.g., Chuck Crotser, who I know is in favor of the project proposal in its current form, has been included in all my Friends and Docents emails (he is a member of the Friends) and hence encouraged by me to fight for his views, too. As I say, however, if your office feels this view represents a conflict, I have no objection to recusal (though the majority of the current CHC is involved with PB or the Jack House in one way or another, and recusing us all would be awkward; it is, as you know, a small and opinionated town). James From: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 4:40 PM To: Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: FW: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr. Papp, I wanted to write you regarding your e-mail below and express my concern about your future participation in the CHC as it relates to this project. The underlying reason for my concern is that, in the quasi-judicial setting (like a use permit), applicants have a due process right to an impartial decision maker and when there is evidence that one of those decision makers has an actual bias such that the person could not act as a "reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer,” then there is a conflict of interest. For example, in the case of Nasha v. City of Los Angeles, (2004) 125 CA 4th 470, the court of appeal determined that a developer’s procedural due process rights were violated because a one of the planning commissioners had an unacceptable probability of actual bias” regarding the proposed project. Specifically, in that case, a planning commission member authored a newsletter that strongly opposed a project that was going to come before the commission on appeal. The newsletter stated, in pertinent part: Multiview Drive Project Threat To Wildlife Corridor [¶] A proposed project taking five legal lots totaling 3.8 acres for five proposed large homes with swimming pools served by a common driveway off Multiview Drive is winding its way through the Planning process.... [¶] After wildlife leaves Briar Summit heading eastward they must either head south towards Mt. Olympus or north to the slopes above Universal City. The Multiview Drive site is an absolutely crucial habitat corridor. Please contact Paul Edelman with the Conservancy at 310/ ... or Mark Hennessy who lives adjacent to the project at 323/ ... if you have any questions.” Id at 484. The court determined that: Contrary to the position taken by Lucente, the newsletter article was not merely informational. The article clearly advocated a position against the project, which it characterized as a “threat to wildlife corridor.”Lucente's authorship of the newsletter article gave rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bias and was sufficient to preclude Lucente from serving as a “reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.” [Citations] Lucente clearly should have recused himself from hearing this matter. His participation in the appeal to the Planning Commission requires the Commission's decision be vacated. Id. This is not to say that a decision maker can’t express an opinion on a proposed project, and there are some cases which further qualify this issue, however, decision makers must be careful regarding their communications and must be sure to remain truly impartial regarding any decision which may come before them. Before I can say whether or not I think you might have a conflict of interest, I would like to know if the e-mail below is the extent of your communications regarding the proposed project. If you would like to meet and discuss this, please let me know. Thanks you. Jon Jon Ansolabehere Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E JAnsolabehere@slocity.org slocity.org From: James Papp [ Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Docents, Last night we had a long (four-hour) and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens. (As a reference point, the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.) All of our concerns are now on the agenda, as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC) and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to the developer. This was a "conceptual review," but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much. He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC. Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council. So there is a long process and (I fear) fight ahead. Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC, to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response (attached), and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni, Susan, Leah, Marilyn Forselles, and others for coming and showing their support. Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request, for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House: we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development, paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal, Sunday weddings, a Victorian sports program, and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least, you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two (sent out Monday, I believe). There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus, and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchworkahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the currentformincludedKathiSettleonbehalfoftheJackHouseCommittee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went last year to ARC with a proposal for 581 Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need todoourownshadingstudy, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:05:56 PM Attachments:image001.png Rachel, I called him back this morning at 8:55 and left him a message. I'll check in again tomorrow, as we are waiting on their signature on the TIS agreement before the consultant can get started. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:07 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hi Bryan and Jake- I received another call from Rex from PB Companies regarding the traffic impact study for the Foster Freeze site. I told him our policy was to use the City approved consultants, but I think he wants to hear the definitive process from either one of you. Can you call him at Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:45 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hey Rachel, I'll give him a call,but it is spelled out in the updated impact study guidelines.For your info on future projects: Process When a development application is submitted,the City of San Luis Obispo’s Transportation Department will determine whether or not a transportation study is required based on CEQA guidelines and City policy.If a transportation impact study is required,the study should be initiated with the following steps. 1.City notifies applicant of transportation study requirement as part of comments on application. 2.Applicant submits a request to the City to initiate the study and City staff drafts a scope of work. 3.City staff advertises the scope of work among the City’s certified on call traffic consultants which are selected bi annually thru a competitive RFQ/RFP process. 4.City staff selects a traffic consultant based on their proposal,schedule,and cost estimate. 5.City staff submits the scope,consultant proposal,and draft reimbursement agreement to the applicant for review and approval. 6.The applicant signs the reimbursement agreement,deposits the funds with the City,and work on the study begins. A 30%City administrative fee is applied to the consultant’s total cost estimate,with any remaining funds at the end of the contract refunded to applicant.If out of scope work is needed during the course of the study,an amendment to the consultant’s proposal and applicant’s reimbursement agreement is required. http://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/public works/programs and services transportation planning and engineering/traffic study resources Bryan Sent from a Google Android device,please excuse errors. From:Cohen,Rachel Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler,Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Monday, May 18, 2015 3:23:23 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Rachel, I'll call him tomorrow. I've been out sick and haven't gotten a chance. Sent from a Google Android device, please excuse errors. On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:07 PM -0700, "Cohen, Rachel" <rcohen@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Bryan and Jake- I received another call from Rex from PB Companies regarding the traffic impact study for the Foster Freeze site. I told him our policy was to use the City approved consultants, but I think he wants to hear the definitive process from either one of you. Can you call him at Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:45 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hey Rachel, I'll give him a call,but it is spelled out in the updated impact study guidelines.For your info on future projects: Process When a development application is submitted,the City of San Luis Obispo’s Transportation Department will determine whether or not a transportation study is required based on CEQA guidelines and City policy.If a transportation impact study is required,the study should be initiated with the following steps. 1.City notifies applicant of transportation study requirement as part of comments on application. 2.Applicant submits a request to the City to initiate the study and City staff drafts a scope of work. 3.City staff advertises the scope of work among the City’s certified on call traffic consultants which are selected bi annually thru a competitive RFQ/RFP process. 4.City staff selects a traffic consultant based on their proposal,schedule,and cost estimate. 5.City staff submits the scope,consultant proposal,and draft reimbursement agreement to the applicant for review and approval. 6.The applicant signs the reimbursement agreement,deposits the funds with the City,and work on the study begins. A 30%City administrative fee is applied to the consultant’s total cost estimate,with any remaining funds at the end of the contract refunded to applicant.If out of scope work is needed during the course of the study,an amendment to the consultant’s proposal and applicant’s reimbursement agreement is required. http://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/public works/programs and services transportation planning and engineering/traffic study resources Bryan Sent from a Google Android device,please excuse errors. From:Cohen,Rachel Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler,Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co PBcoLOGO200 This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Wheeler, Bryan Cc:Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Monday, May 18, 2015 3:07:01 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bryan and Jake- I received another call from Rex from PB Companies regarding the traffic impact study for the Foster Freeze site. I told him our policy was to use the City approved consultants, but I think he wants to hear the definitive process from either one of you. Can you call him at Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:45 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hey Rachel, I'll give him a call,but it is spelled out in the updated impact study guidelines.For your info on future projects: Process When a development application is submitted,the City of San Luis Obispo’s Transportation Department will determine whether or not a transportation study is required based on CEQA guidelines and City policy.If a transportation impact study is required,the study should be initiated with the following steps. 1.City notifies applicant of transportation study requirement as part of comments on application. 2.Applicant submits a request to the City to initiate the study and City staff drafts a scope of work. 3.City staff advertises the scope of work among the City’s certified on call traffic consultants which are selected bi annually thru a competitive RFQ/RFP process. 4.City staff selects a traffic consultant based on their proposal,schedule,and cost estimate. 5.City staff submits the scope,consultant proposal,and draft reimbursement agreement to the applicant for review and approval. 6.The applicant signs the reimbursement agreement,deposits the funds with the City,and work on the study begins. A 30%City administrative fee is applied to the consultant’s total cost estimate,with any remaining funds at the end of the contract refunded to applicant.If out of scope work is needed during the course of the study,an amendment to the consultant’s proposal and applicant’s reimbursement agreement is required. http://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/public works/programs and services transportation planning and engineering/traffic study resources Bryan Sent from a Google Android device,please excuse errors. From:Cohen,Rachel Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler,Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co PBcoLOGO200 This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:00:30 PM Attachments:image001.png Thanks Bryan. That is super helpful background info for me. Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:45 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hey Rachel, I'll give him a call,but it is spelled out in the updated impact study guidelines.For your info on future projects: Process When a development application is submitted,the City of San Luis Obispo’s Transportation Department will determine whether or not a transportation study is required based on CEQA guidelines and City policy.If a transportation impact study is required,the study should be initiated with the following steps. 1.City notifies applicant of transportation study requirement as part of comments on application. 2.Applicant submits a request to the City to initiate the study and City staff drafts a scope of work. 3.City staff advertises the scope of work among the City’s certified on call traffic consultants which are selected bi annually thru a competitive RFQ/RFP process. 4.City staff selects a traffic consultant based on their proposal,schedule,and cost estimate. 5.City staff submits the scope,consultant proposal,and draft reimbursement agreement to the applicant for review and approval. 6.The applicant signs the reimbursement agreement,deposits the funds with the City,and work on the study begins. A 30%City administrative fee is applied to the consultant’s total cost estimate,with any remaining funds at the end of the contract refunded to applicant.If out of scope work is needed during the course of the study,an amendment to the consultant’s proposal and applicant’s reimbursement agreement is required. http://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/public works/programs and services transportation planning and engineering/traffic study resources Bryan Sent from a Google Android device,please excuse errors. From:Cohen,Rachel Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler,Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co PBcoLOGO200 This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:44:38 AM Hey Rachel, I'll give him a call, but it is spelled out in the updated impact study guidelines. For your info on future projects: Process When a development application is submitted, the City of San Luis Obispo’s Transportation Department will determine whether or not a transportation study is required based on CEQA guidelines and City policy. If a transportation impact study is required, the study should be initiated with the following steps. 1. City notifies applicant of transportation study requirement as part of comments on application. 2. Applicant submits a request to the City to initiate the study and City staff drafts a scope of work. 3. City staff advertises the scope of work among the City’s certified on-call traffic consultants which are selected bi-annually thru a competitive RFQ/RFP process. 4. City staff selects a traffic consultant based on their proposal, schedule, and cost estimate. 5. City staff submits the scope, consultant proposal, and draft reimbursement agreement to the applicant for review and approval. 6. The applicant signs the reimbursement agreement, deposits the funds with the City, and work on the study begins. A 30% City administrative fee is applied to the consultant’s total cost estimate, with any remaining funds at the end of the contract refunded to applicant. If out of scope work is needed during the course of the study, an amendment to the consultant’s proposal and applicant’s reimbursement agreement is required. http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/programs-and- services-/transportation-planning-and-engineering/traffic-study-resources Bryan Sent from a Google Android device, please excuse errors. From:Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler, Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co PBcoLOGO200 This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:17:41 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27:07 AM Attachments:image001.png Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Rex Steward To:Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc:Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14:57 AM Attachments:image001.png Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Date:Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:58:03 PM Attachments:image001.png Thanks Bryan. Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:06 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, I called him back this morning at 8:55 and left him a message. I'll check in again tomorrow, as we are waiting on their signature on the TIS agreement before the consultant can get started. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:07 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hi Bryan and Jake- I received another call from Rex from PB Companies regarding the traffic impact study for the Foster Freeze site. I told him our policy was to use the City approved consultants, but I think he wants to hear the definitive process from either one of you. Can you call him at Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:45 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Hey Rachel, I'll give him a call,but it is spelled out in the updated impact study guidelines.For your info on future projects: Process When a development application is submitted,the City of San Luis Obispo’s Transportation Department will determine whether or not a transportation study is required based on CEQA guidelines and City policy.If a transportation impact study is required,the study should be initiated with the following steps. 1.City notifies applicant of transportation study requirement as part of comments on application. 2.Applicant submits a request to the City to initiate the study and City staff drafts a scope of work. 3.City staff advertises the scope of work among the City’s certified on call traffic consultants which are selected bi annually thru a competitive RFQ/RFP process. 4.City staff selects a traffic consultant based on their proposal,schedule,and cost estimate. 5.City staff submits the scope,consultant proposal,and draft reimbursement agreement to the applicant for review and approval. 6.The applicant signs the reimbursement agreement,deposits the funds with the City,and work on the study begins. A 30%City administrative fee is applied to the consultant’s total cost estimate,with any remaining funds at the end of the contract refunded to applicant.If out of scope work is needed during the course of the study,an amendment to the consultant’s proposal and applicant’s reimbursement agreement is required. http://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/public works/programs and services transportation planning and engineering/traffic study resources Bryan Sent from a Google Android device,please excuse errors. From:Cohen,Rachel Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement To:Wheeler,Bryan Hi Bryan- Rex called me this morning to see if they might be able to get their own bids from traffic consultants that they have worked with before. I am not sure how traffic vets consultants so I told him that he would need to speak with you directly. When you get back from class, can you call Rex on his cell and let him know traffic’s protocol for such requests. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Hudson, Jake To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: San Luis Square Date:Thursday, July 2, 2015 12:53:25 PM Attachments:image001.png I don’t recall off the top of my head….If we didn’t require a traffic study then it’s a safe bet it didn’t generate more than 100 trips. From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:40 AM To: Hudson, Jake Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: San Luis Square Thanks Jake. This is helpful. I am assuming that The Junction did not generate 100 or more trips in the peak hour? Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Hudson, Jake Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:24 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: San Luis Square The LUCE update established operational thresholds for vehicle, ped, and bike facilities. Projects that could impact the policy thresholds by either modifying the facilities or generating a high level of traffic, typically 100 or more trips in the peak hour, are required to conduct a traffic study. If the study finds that a project causes these thresholds to be exceeded, the study will also identify what measures are needed to bring those facilities back to within acceptable thresholds. In this case the traffic study is not part of a CEQA requirement, rather it part of a general plan requirement. From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Hudson, Jake Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: FW: San Luis Square Hi Jake- Can you help me address John’s questions about the requirement of the traffic study for San Luis Square? Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org On Jun 26,2015,at 2:53 PM,John Belsher john@pbcompanies.co>wrote: Doug and Marcus:I am under the impression that the City is requiring a traffic study for the San Luis Square project.We are unsure why this is being required given the recent LUCE update and the City actions exempting other in-fill projects recently.By way of example,I am aware of the recent action on the Junction project,which included the following finding: Section 2.Environmental Review.The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits,consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses,and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. I would appreciate a response explaining the City’s seemingly opposite position for this project? John Belsher PB Companies,LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805)540-3330 805)549-8343 direct From:Cohen, Rachel To:Hudson, Jake Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: San Luis Square Date:Thursday, July 2, 2015 9:40:16 AM Attachments:image001.png Thanks Jake. This is helpful. I am assuming that The Junction did not generate 100 or more trips in the peak hour? Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Hudson, Jake Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 11:24 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: San Luis Square The LUCE update established operational thresholds for vehicle, ped, and bike facilities. Projects that could impact the policy thresholds by either modifying the facilities or generating a high level of traffic, typically 100 or more trips in the peak hour, are required to conduct a traffic study. If the study finds that a project causes these thresholds to be exceeded, the study will also identify what measures are needed to bring those facilities back to within acceptable thresholds. In this case the traffic study is not part of a CEQA requirement, rather it part of a general plan requirement. From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Hudson, Jake Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: FW: San Luis Square Hi Jake- Can you help me address John’s questions about the requirement of the traffic study for San Luis Square? Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org On Jun 26,2015,at 2:53 PM,John Belsher john@pbcompanies.co>wrote: Doug and Marcus:I am under the impression that the City is requiring a traffic study for the San Luis Square project.We are unsure why this is being required given the recent LUCE update and the City actions exempting other in-fill projects recently.By way of example,I am aware of the recent action on the Junction project,which included the following finding: Section 2.Environmental Review.The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits,consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses,and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. I would appreciate a response explaining the City’s seemingly opposite position for this project? John Belsher PB Companies,LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805)540-3330 805)549-8343 direct From:Hudson, Jake To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: San Luis Square Date:Wednesday, July 1, 2015 11:23:40 AM Attachments:image001.png The LUCE update established operational thresholds for vehicle, ped, and bike facilities. Projects that could impact the policy thresholds by either modifying the facilities or generating a high level of traffic, typically 100 or more trips in the peak hour, are required to conduct a traffic study. If the study finds that a project causes these thresholds to be exceeded, the study will also identify what measures are needed to bring those facilities back to within acceptable thresholds. In this case the traffic study is not part of a CEQA requirement, rather it part of a general plan requirement. From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:27 AM To: Hudson, Jake Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: FW: San Luis Square Hi Jake- Can you help me address John’s questions about the requirement of the traffic study for San Luis Square? Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org On Jun 26,2015,at 2:53 PM,John Belsher john@pbcompanies.co>wrote: Doug and Marcus:I am under the impression that the City is requiring a traffic study for the San Luis Square project.We are unsure why this is being required given the recent LUCE update and the City actions exempting other in-fill projects recently.By way of example,I am aware of the recent action on the Junction project,which included the following finding: Section 2.Environmental Review.The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits,consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses,and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. I would appreciate a response explaining the City’s seemingly opposite position for this project? John Belsher PB Companies,LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805)540-3330 805)549-8343 direct From:Cohen, Rachel To:John Belsher Cc:Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Davidson, Doug; Hudson, Jake; Jenny Emrick (jenny@pbcompanies.co); Randy Alonzo (randy@pbcompanies.co) Subject:RE: San Luis Square Date:Thursday, July 2, 2015 3:25:47 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi John- The LUCE update established operational thresholds for vehicle, ped, and bike facilities. Projects that could impact the policy thresholds by either modifying the facilities or generating a high level of traffic, typically 100 or more trips in the peak hour, are required to conduct a traffic study. If the study finds that a project causes these thresholds to be exceeded, the study will also identify what measures are needed to bring those facilities back to within acceptable thresholds. In this case the traffic study is not part of a CEQA requirement, rather it part of a general plan requirement. You can access the updated Circulation Element online http://www.slo2035.com/images/final/2_slo_gp_circulation_2015_05_web.pdf). Chapter 6 specifically discusses the multi-modal circulation. In reference to The Junction, the project did not produce more than 100 or more trips in the peak hour since the project only includes 3,000 square feet of commercial space. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Carloni, Marcus Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 3:08 PM To: John Belsher Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Davidson, Doug; Cohen, Rachel Subject: Re: San Luis Square Hi John, Rachel Cohen is the assigned planner for this project I have copied her on this response).Please allow her some time to gather a response from our Transportation Division.Thanks and have a nice weekend, Marcus Sent from my cell phone On Jun 26,2015,at 2:53 PM,John Belsher john@pbcompanies.co>wrote: Doug and Marcus:I am under the impression that the City is requiring a traffic study for the San Luis Square project.We are unsure why this is being required given the recent LUCE update and the City actions exempting other in-fill projects recently.By way of example,I am aware of the recent action on the Junction project,which included the following finding: Section 2.Environmental Review.The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits,consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses,and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. I would appreciate a response explaining the City’s seemingly opposite position for this project? John Belsher PB Companies,LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805)540-3330 805)549-8343 direct From:Carloni, Marcus To:John Belsher Cc:Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Davidson, Doug; Cohen, Rachel Subject:Re: San Luis Square Date:Friday, June 26, 2015 3:07:52 PM Hi John, Rachel Cohen is the assigned planner for this project (I have copied her on this response). Please allow her some time to gather a response from our Transportation Division. Thanks and have a nice weekend, Marcus Sent from my cell phone On Jun 26, 2015, at 2:53 PM, John Belsher <john@pbcompanies.co> wrote: Doug and Marcus:I am under the impression that the City is requiring a traffic study for the San Luis Square project.We are unsure why this is being required given the recent LUCE update and the City actions exempting other in-fill projects recently.By way of example,I am aware of the recent action on the Junction project,which included the following finding: Section 2.Environmental Review.The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects)of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits,consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses,and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required utilities and public services. I would appreciate a response explaining the City’s seemingly opposite position for this project? John Belsher PB Companies,LLC 3480 South Higuera Suite 130 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805)540-3330 805)549-8343 direct From:Cohen, Rachel To:Jenny Emrick; Rex Steward (rex@pbcompanies.co) Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:SLS Transportation Study Date:Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:05:13 PM Attachments:image002.png Hi Jenny and Rex- I am following up on the status of the fee for the transportation study. We have a consultant ready to begin the study, however they cannot start until we have received payment. Can you inform me and Bryan of your status. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:58 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: San Luis Square ARC Submittal Update Rachel, It was great seeing you at the workshop – it was such a cool experience! Glad I got to go. I wanted to try and talk to you earlier at the workshop but didn’t have a chance to get to you. We recently found out that Arts Obispo doesn’t want to put the Annie’s Dance sculpture in our downtown project paseo, they think it’s too cramped and would rather have the piece placed on another one of our projects. Arts Obispo is still going to work with us to find a piece that fits better within our downtown project, but we are currently showing “Annie’s Dance” on all the materials we submitted to you, which is now incorrect. Should we update the materials and provide you with new packets, or simply explain at the hearing that the public art has changed? On this note, I also wanted to follow up with the submittal package in general and see what you think. We want to provide you with the information that helps you the most, so if there is anything additional you think we should add, or anything that needs clarification, etc… it would be extremely helpful to hear it. We have additional renderings, floor plans, and exhibits and we didn’t know if providing you with more information would be helpful or not. I’m not sure when your deadline to produce your staff report is, but I’m available to meet with you to discuss if needed. As the applicant, we want to provide anything you need to help you with your recommendation. Also, are we getting any closer to scheduling a date for the hearing? Thank you, and talk to you soon, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:kathi settle To:Marx, Jan Subject:CHC/ARC meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:11:07 AM Attachments:JHC to ARC & CHC.pdf Hi Jan, Thank you for the heads up on the joint CHC/ARC meeting. Many were there to speak and those Jack House Committee members who were in town also attended. We (The Jack House Committee) collaborated on a letter sent to both committees and here is what I read into the record last night. Please share this with the other council members. Hope you are finding time to enjoy your summer and your family. Kathi From:Wheeler, Bryan To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Friday, June 5, 2015 12:37:32 PM Attachments:image001.png Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Johnson, Derek To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Dunsmore, Phil; Davidson, Doug Subject:FW: CHC/ARC meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:02:46 PM Attachments:JHC to ARC & CHC.pdf From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:23 AM To: Council_ALL Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: FW: CHC/ARC meeting From kathi settle. Jan From: kathi settle Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:10:53 AM To: Marx, Jan Subject: CHC/ARC meeting Hi Jan, Thank you for the heads up on the joint CHC/ARC meeting. Many were there to speak and those Jack House Committee members who were in town also attended. We (The Jack House Committee) collaborated on a letter sent to both committees and here is what I read into the record last night. Please share this with the other council members. Hope you are finding time to enjoy your summer and your family. Kathi From:Marx, Jan To:Council_ALL Cc:Johnson, Derek Subject:FW: CHC/ARC meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:22:54 AM Attachments:JHC to ARC & CHC.pdf From kathi settle. Jan From: kathi settle Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:10:53 AM To: Marx, Jan Subject: CHC/ARC meeting Hi Jan, Thank you for the heads up on the joint CHC/ARC meeting. Many were there to speak and those Jack House Committee members who were in town also attended. We (The Jack House Committee) collaborated on a letter sent to both committees and here is what I read into the record last night. Please share this with the other council members. Hope you are finding time to enjoy your summer and your family. Kathi From:James Papp To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:Fw: Jack House docents meeting Tuesday, July 14th, 4:30 p.m. at the Jack House; 4-story development proposal next to Jack House; piano; etc. Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 10:11:46 AM Attachments:PB Development Proposal.pdf Here is my first email to the Friends of the Jack House and Jack House Docents on the PB Companies proposal, which I sent after it was published. From: James Papp < Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 10:14 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Christine wallace; kathi settle; shelly stanwyck; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Maureen Titus Subject: Jack House docents meeting Tuesday, July 14th, 4:30 p.m. at the Jack House; 4-story development proposal next to Jack House; piano; etc. With mainstays Toni and Lois out of town this week, I'd like to try something new, and combine a Docents meeting with a Friends meeting at the Jack House on Tuesday the 14th at 4:30 p.m. There are a number of important things to discuss, and if you can't make the meeting and would like to weigh in by email, please reply to me and I'll relay your comments to the group. First, a four-story development is being proposed sixteen feet from the east boundary of the Jack Garden. There is a hearing on this before a joint meeting of the city's Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission on Monday, July 13th, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. I'm attaching the proposal. The meeting will be a chance to learn about the proposal and also to comment publicly on it. This is an early stage of hearings, but what happens at the early stage has a crucial effect on what finally happens. If you care about the Jack House and its gardens, I urge you come to the meeting. If you can't, email me, and I will relay your comments for the minutes. On a more positive note, a tuner for historic pianos, Bryan Graef, has been hired to get the 1864 Jack piano back into tune. This will take at least three sessions in the next month (the first was this morning and lasted three hours), so I've moved objects from the piano so it's easier to get the top on and off. Once the piano tuning has been set (with two more visits three months and six months down the road), it should be playable for the foreseeable future. We've been discussing with Parks and Rec programming staff introducing Victorian games to the Jack Garden to both align with their goals and promote our mission to a new audience. Croquet, lawn bowling, badminton, and fencing are some of the suggestions. Finally, our schedule with opening an exhibition in the Carriage House was upended when Parks and Rec nixed it from opening during weddings. A number of us among docents, friends, and park staff have been discussing the viability of a policy ending weddings on Sundays, so the house and park can be devoted to the community on that day. (The Dallidet Adobe limits weddings to Saturdays, and Sunday is always a visitor day). This will be another topic to discuss at the July 14th meeting. Hope to see you there! James P.S. The Jack Ranch exhibition at the History Center will be moving at the end of July to the Pioneer Museum, where it will open in late August with additional items (e.g., Howard Jack's cattle horn chair). If you don't want to drive to Paso, this is your chance to see it close to home. The History Center is open 10–4 Wednesday through Monday. From:Setterlund, David To:Stanwyck, Shelly Subject:FW: JHC to ARC & CHC Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 8:57:00 AM Attachments:JHC to ARC & CHC.pdf Hi Shelly, I just wanted to let you know that this evening members of the Jack House Committee will be present at the joint ARC & CHC meeting were they intend to read the attached letter during public comment. Best, Dave From: Eva Ulz [mailto: Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:22 PM To: kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; susan updegrove; eva ulz; Setterlund, David; James Papp Subject: Fwd: JHC to ARC & CHC Dear Fellow Jack House Folks: I've attached a draft letter (based on comments from Kathi and James about the proposed San Luis Square project) that will be presented to the ARC and CHC before their joint meeting tomorrow evening. In addition, Kathi plans to read the letter aloud during public comment, and I (and hopefully some of you too) will be there to help her field any questions about our position. Please take a moment tonight (Sunday) or tomorrow morning (Monday) to read through the letter and let me know about anything I've missed, or if you have any concerns with what we are saying. We need to email this letter to the ARC and CHC before the afternoon, so please get me your comments ASAP, or by 11 am at the absolute latest. Many thanks, Eva From:Stanwyck, Shelly To:Cohen, Rachel; Johnson, Derek; Davidson, Doug Subject:FW: Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:40:36 PM Attachments:JHC letter to CHC and ARC.pdf Thought you all would want to be copied on this. From: James Papp [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Docents, Last night we had a long four-hour)and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens.As a reference point,the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.)All of our concerns are now on the agenda,as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC)and Architectural Review Commission ARC)to the developer.This was a conceptual review,"but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much.He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC.Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council.So there is a long process and I fear)fight ahead.Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC,to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response attached),and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni,Susan,Leah,Marilyn Forselles,and others for coming and showing their support.Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request,for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House:we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development,paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal,Sunday weddings,a Victorian sports program,and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least,you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two sent out Monday,I believe).There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus,and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchworkahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the currentformincludedKathiSettleonbehalfoftheJackHouseCommittee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went lastyeartoARCwithaproposalfor581Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need todoourownshadingstudy, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:James Papp To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:Fw: Preliminary observations on JHC response to PB company project Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 10:09:09 AM Here is an email written to the Jack House Committee after Rachel Cohen of the Community Development Department presented the San Luis Square project to the Jack House Committee at our Wednesday 8 July meeting, with a team from PB Companies also present to answer questions. From: James Papp < Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 8:28 PM To: kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; susan updegrove; eva ulz; Setterlund, David Subject: Preliminary observations on JHC response to PB company project Hi all, Those of you who were not at the JHC meeting Wednesday will have missed the committee's decision to draft a committee response to the proposed PB project and send Kathi and Eva to represent us at the joint CHC and ARC meeting this Monday. I think this is an existential issue for the house: once two 60-foot buildings the equivalent of six normal stories) go up next to the historic Jack Garden, we'll never get our light, view, or ambiance back. In addition, the effect of loss of light (let alone construction) on the plants is unknown. Here are some facts to help in the response: The Jack House is on San Luis Obispo's Master List of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The Jack Garden was included in the NRHP application. 1. San Luis Obispo's Community Design Guidelines, adopted by the City Council 19 Nov. 2002, state in section 4.2.B.2. New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them." Note the language "shall not," in contrast to the "should not" of most of the other guidelines, along with the explicit mention of the Jack Garden. In other words, obstructing sunlight to the Jack Garden with a building is expressly forbidden. There is no question the 60-foot sheer wall of 581 Higuera, 5 feet from the Jack Garden property line and overlapping the garden by 15 feet at its edge, will obstruct sunlight to the gardens and obstruct views of sky and surrounding trees. The concept view of it from the garden that we were briefly shown was positioned from under a tree so does not represent what it would look like from most of the garden, i.e., a sixty-foot-high angular industrial-style brick building with no setback and no screening, as PB proposes to remove our NE corner Southern California Black Walnut tree. 570 Marsh will reach 56 feet. Its 18-foot-high awning (the equivalent of a two-story residential house) appears to be 4 feet from the property line. The 30-foot-high first and second floors (the equivalent of a three-story building) is set back 16 feet from the property line in the plan. The 42-foot-high thrid floor (a four-floor equivalent) is described in the PDF plan distributed to CHC and forwarded by me as being set back 22 feet from the property line, but the printed plan does not show any setback. The 56-foot-high fourth floor (a five- or six-floor equivalent: think the Anderson Hotel) is described as having a 34-foot-setback from the property line, but this again is not reflected in the printed plans, which shows something closer to 20. Even if we accept the PDF versus the printed plans, according to my calculations, the shadow cast by 570 Marsh would, even at 9:30 a.m. on the winter solstice, entirely cover the Jack Park up to the Jack House. (The winter solstice is used in the guidelines elsewhere for regulations of light for sidewalks on the north side of Marsh Street.) On summer solstice the effect would be less extreme, shadowing about 40 percent of the space between the Jack House and property line at 8 a.m. The rest of the year would fall in between, but the main Jack lawn would be something to be enjoyed only in the late morning or afternoon, especially as visitors tend to gravitate to the gazebo to rest or eat. A note here that figure 2 in the PDF proposal misrepresents the height of the buildings [lower] and their distance from the Jack House [farther]; flip the 125-foot measure, and the buildings should reach about halfway, which they don't; also, 570 Marsh is shown as being lower than 590, but the plans list them both at 56 feet.) 2. Zoning for the area is capped at 50 feet. PB is asking for a variance to go to 56 feet and 60 feet. 3. The Community Design Guidelines enjoin developers to (1.4.A.4.) "design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples of massing, scale, and land uses when a site is located in a notable area of the city (for example, the downtown)"; (1.4.A.5.) "protect the scale and character of historic neighborhoods" note, not just formal historic zoning districts); (3.1.A.2.) "avoid 'boxy' structures with large, flat wall planes" (this describes 581 Higuera). Additionallly: 3.4.C.1.c.) "Multistory buildings should not be placed adjacent to residential private open space areas (e.g., rear yards)" (this is analogous to the public open space of the Jack Garden); (4.2.B.1.b.) "New buildings that are significantly taller … than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions); (4.2.B.1.c.) "For new buildings adjacent to buildings included on the city's Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings"; (5.3.B.) An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood" (5.3.C.) "The height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures"; (5.4.A.1.) "New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor and outdoor living space of adjacent units" (again, analogous to the privacy and serenity of the Jack Garden). Note: no other building on the block is more than 2 stories. The PB project would be 4 stories or an effective 6 in height. 4. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section." The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance." Notably, when National Register of Historic Places status was applied for and received for the Jack House, the garden was included in the application as being covered with many mature trees planted by Nellie Jack, who was particularly fond of trees and exotic shrubs." 5. The Southern California Black Walnut Tree PB companies proposes to chop down the huge California Black Walnut tree in the northwest corner of the Jack Garden, as its canopy extends over 20 feet into their property, which would preclude placing 581 Higuera 5 feet from the property line. This is one of our historic trees, mature and with a canopy topping the carriage house and visible from the road when the Jack House was donated and clearly of a maturity to have been planted by Nellie Jack. From:Webb, Donre To:Gibson, Jessica Subject:FW: San Luis Square project Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 8:37:00 AM Donre Webb Administrative Assistant II Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E DWebb@slocity.org T 805.781.7577 slocity.org Original Message----- From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 8:09 AM To: Webb, Donre Cc: Murry, Kim Subject: FW: San Luis Square project Hi Donre- Please forward to the CHC and ARC members. Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Original Message----- From: Chuck [ Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 3:59 PM To: Leveille, Brian; Dunsmore, Phil; Cohen, Rachel Subject: San Luis Square project Brian, I had hoped to attend the meeting on Monday regarding the San Luis Square project, however I won't be back in SLO for at least another week. I've had the opportunity of seeing the evolution of this project over the past few months, and I am writing to support its approval. The project seems to comply with current zoning and land-use requirements and standards, and with the intention of the Downtown Concept Plan. Although the buildings are larger than those in the vicinity, they are thoughtfully planned and exhibit a very nice variety in massing and materials. They represent an example of what can be accomplished with good design and planning. Some of the constructive and positive benefits of this project include: The removal of surface parking and provision of pedestrian amenities. The mid-block paseo between Marsh and Higuera, with the possibility of providing a mid-block connection behind the Jack House to connect to future development between Nipomo and the freeway. Public and private roof access which would provide an opportunity of extraordinary views of local peaks as well as distant hills. A variety of convenient and much needed housing opportunities which brings vitality and positive synergism to the urban core. I've heard of concerns about this project's affect on the Jack House, however, in my view, it's proximity and character would complement the Jack House and its setting. Shading of the grounds will not be an issue as the periods of maximum shade are earlier morning hours particularly during the winter season when the Jack House is normally closed. Any time throughout the year, the grounds should experience full sunlight after mid-morning. A solar analysis could confirm this if necessary. I believe this project is an attractive and progressive addition to our downtown and should receive the support of the ARC and CHC. Although I could support preliminary approval of this project, I would concur with staff's recommendation of a continuance to allow further evaluation of the project details, particularly those that may involve cooperation of the City regarding potential amenities associated with the Jack house grounds. Otherwise, I fully endorse this project. Thank you for your consideration. Chuck Charles Crotser Architect AIA P.O. Box 12528, SLO CA 93406 805) 471-5967; Sent from my iPad From:Setterlund, David To:Dunsmore, Phil; Leveille, Brian; Cohen, Rachel Subject:JH Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 11:28:00 AM Attachments:JHC to ARC & CHC.PDF Good Morning, As a heads-up I wanted to let you all know that members of the Jack House Committee plan to be present at tonight’s joint ARC & CHC meeting. I have attached a letter that the JH Committee plans to read and submit to the committees this evening. Best, Dave Dave Setterlund Rec. Supervisor Tel: 781-7067 Email: dsetterlund@slocity.org From:James Papp To:Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject:Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13:24 PM Attachments:JHC letter to CHC and ARC.pdf Dear Docents, Last night we had a long (four-hour) and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens. (As a reference point, the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.) All of our concerns are now on the agenda, as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC) and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to the developer. This was a "conceptual review," but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much. He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC. Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council. So there is a long process and (I fear) fight ahead. Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC, to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response (attached), and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni, Susan, Leah, Marilyn Forselles, and others for coming and showing their support. Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request, for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House: we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development, paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal, Sunday weddings, a Victorian sports program, and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least, you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two (sent out Monday, I believe). There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus, and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchwork ahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the currentformincludedKathiSettleonbehalfoftheJackHouseCommittee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went lastyeartoARCwithaproposalfor581Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need todoourownshadingstudy, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:Cohen, Rachel To:Wheeler, Bryan; Joe Fernandez Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:05:08 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bryan- I have not heard anything from the applicant since the July 13th meeting. I can reach out to them if that would be helpful. Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Wheeler, Bryan Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:02 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Joe Fernandez Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Rachel, Have we heard from the applicant yet for their traffic study? Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 3:36 PM To: Joe Fernandez Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Joe- I have not heard if the applicant has submitted payment for the traffic study yet. I will check with Public Works and will get back to you with a more definitive answer. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe@cctransconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:52 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Rachel, It looks like Bryan is out of the office,so I thought I’d check in with you on the status of this project.Has the applicant submitted payment for the traffic study?If so we’d like to schedule the traffic counts. Thanks, Joe Joe Fernandez,PE,AICP Central Coast Transportation Consulting 805)316-0101 www.cctransconsulting.com From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,June 5,2015 12:38 PM To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Cohen, Rachel To:Joe Fernandez Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2015 3:35:36 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Joe- I have not heard if the applicant has submitted payment for the traffic study yet. I will check with Public Works and will get back to you with a more definitive answer. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe@cctransconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:52 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Rachel, It looks like Bryan is out of the office,so I thought I’d check in with you on the status of this project.Has the applicant submitted payment for the traffic study?If so we’d like to schedule the traffic counts. Thanks, Joe Joe Fernandez,PE,AICP Central Coast Transportation Consulting 805)316-0101 www.cctransconsulting.com From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,June 5,2015 12:38 PM To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Rex Steward To:Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Friday, June 5, 2015 12:36:42 PM Attachments:image001.png Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well. The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:54 PM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced. Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note, how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Wheeler, Bryan To:Cohen, Rachel; Joe Fernandez Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:02:20 AM Attachments:image001.png Rachel, Have we heard from the applicant yet for their traffic study? Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 3:36 PM To: Joe Fernandez Cc: Wheeler, Bryan Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Joe- I have not heard if the applicant has submitted payment for the traffic study yet. I will check with Public Works and will get back to you with a more definitive answer. Cheers, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Joe Fernandez [mailto:joe@cctransconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 9:52 AM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Hi Rachel, It looks like Bryan is out of the office,so I thought I’d check in with you on the status of this project.Has the applicant submitted payment for the traffic study?If so we’d like to schedule the traffic counts. Thanks, Joe Joe Fernandez,PE,AICP Central Coast Transportation Consulting 805)316-0101 www.cctransconsulting.com From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Friday,June 5,2015 12:38 PM To:coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject:FW:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well.The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,June 4,2015 2:54 PM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:590/570 Marsh Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study.Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced.Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note,how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From:Wheeler,Bryan mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 10:27 AM To:Rex Steward;Cohen,Rachel Cc:Ryan Petetit;Randy Alonzo;Jenny Emrick;Hudson,Jake Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved by Public Works and our team)list of three to five consultants?We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From:Cohen,Rachel mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent:Wednesday,May 13,2015 10:58 AM To:Jenny Emrick Cc:Ryan Petetit;Rex Steward;Randy Alonzo Subject:RE:San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Joe To:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Date:Thursday, July 2, 2015 3:04:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bryan- any update on this? Thanks Joe From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 12:38 PM To: coasttransportation@gmail.com Subject: FW: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Joe, See attached. Looks like the payment for the traffic study will be next week. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan, Here is a dropbox link to the conceptual submittal: I’ll bring in a CD with the PDF set this afternoon as well. The traffic study payment should be ready next week. Thanks, Rex From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:54 PM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Mr. Steward, Thanks for the conceptual review submittal. I was wondering if you had an electronic PDF copy that I can pass along to the traffic impact study consultant. Also, checking in on the submission of the payment for the traffic study. Thank you Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [mailto:rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:46 PM To: Wheeler, Bryan; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: 590/570 Marsh - Traffic Impact Study Bryan/Jake, See attached for the signed service authorization form for the 590/570 Marsh traffic impact study. Please keep us informed as the work is initiated and the study is produced. Feel free to contact me if you or the consultant need any additional information. On another note, how is the scope for the updated Bonetti Ranch TIS coming along? Please confirm receipt of this form and we will bring the deposit by as soon as it is available. Sincerely, Rex Steward From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler@slocity.org] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: Rex Steward; Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick; Hudson, Jake Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Mr. Steward, The impact study was advertised to our three on-call transportation consultants. Their costs for the impact study, with comparable proposals, is in the table below. Re-advertising would cause delay in the process, which is estimated to take 6 weeks minimum from the execution of the agreement. Good Afternoon, Thank you for submitting proposals for the 570/579 Marsh Street Traffic Impact Study. The City has selected Central Coast Transportation Consulting based upon the cost indicated in the proposal. Please see the comparison below. Central Coast Transportation Consulting $28,575 Fehr and Peers $33,350 Omni-Means $37,740 If you have any questions, or would like to release your proposal to the other consultants upon request, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to working with you on future projects. Bryan Wheeler Traffic Engineer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Transportation Operations 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bwheeler@slocity.org T 805.781.7178 slocity.org From: Rex Steward [rex@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: Cohen, Rachel; Wheeler, Bryan Cc: Ryan Petetit; Randy Alonzo; Jenny Emrick Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel/Bryan, Would it be possible to re-advertise the traffic study RFP to a pre-approved (by Public Works and our team) list of three to five consultants? We want to make sure the project is bid competitively. Thank you, Rex Steward From: Cohen, Rachel [mailto:rcohen@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:58 AM To: Jenny Emrick Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: RE: San Luis Square Developers Statement Thank you Jenny for the electronic version of the Developers statement. I do have a hard copy already in the project file, so another is not needed. If possible, I would like to get some additional information from you: Do you have an estimate of when you will be resubmitting the conceptual plans? If not, not a problem, just trying to anticipate upcoming project timelines. Also, I recently sent you an e-mail about the traffic impact study that will be required for the site. I wanted to confirm that you had received that e-mail. Please let me or Byran Wheeler know if you have any questions. Lastly, can you provide me with a conceptual calculation of: o the total number of units for all three buildings; and o a breakdown of the square footage of all the commercial and residential areas for all three buildings? (I understand that these will be rough estimates, and that is okay). Thank you, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 5:47 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Cc: Ryan Petetit; Rex Steward; Randy Alonzo Subject: San Luis Square Developers Statement Rachel, Ryan asked me to send you our developers statement for San Luis Square. I’ve created a dropbox folder that contains the document and the exhibits, use the link below to access the files, and please let me know if you have any trouble! San Luis Square Developers Statement: Thank you, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. From:Chuck To:James Papp Cc:Eva Ulz; kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; susan updegrove; eva ulz; Setterlund, David; Subject:Re: I think Eva did I nice job pulling everyone"s concerns together and expressing them succinctly and forcefully; looks good to me (no message) Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 12:57:45 AM James and all, Just a note to indicate that because I'm out of town and will be unable to attend the meeting, I've sent an email to Brian Leveille with my thoughts on the project. They are generally more supportive of the project than those described in the letter from the Jack House Committee, however, I wrote as an individual, not as a representative of the Committee. We'll see how things go. I am hopeful that we can further discuss the relationship between the new project and the Jack House. Chuck Sent from my iPad On Jul 13, 2015, at 6:29 AM, James Papp <wrote: From: Eva Ulz < Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 1:21 AM To: kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; susan updegrove; eva ulz; Setterlund, David; James Papp Subject: Fwd: JHC to ARC & CHC Dear Fellow Jack House Folks: I've attached a draft letter (based on comments from Kathi and James about the proposed San Luis Square project) that will be presented to the ARC and CHC before their joint meeting tomorrow evening. In addition, Kathi plans to read the letter aloud during public comment, and I (and hopefully some of you too) will be there to help her field any questions about our position. Please take a moment tonight (Sunday) or tomorrow morning (Monday) to read through the letter and let me know about anything I've missed, or if you have any concerns with what we are saying. We need to email this letter to the ARC and CHC before the afternoon, so please get me your comments ASAP, or by 11 am at the absolute latest. Many thanks, Eva From:Eva Ulz To:Susan Updegrove; Eva Ulz Cc:kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; eva ulz; Setterlund, David; James Papp Subject:RE: JHC to ARC & CHC Date:Monday, July 13, 2015 11:35:52 AM Thank you Susan! Eva Ulz Curator 805) 543-0638 eva@historycenterslo.org History Center of San Luis Obispo County 696 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 http://historycenterslo.org Original Message----- From: Susan Updegrove [mailto: Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 7:38 AM To: Eva Ulz Cc: kathi settle; Toni Kincaid; bob gordon; eva ulz; Setterlund, David; James Papp Subject: Re: JHC to ARC & CHC Hi All, Great letter. Only one small change that I see: Under #1, Paragraph 3, sentence 2, add the word "than" after the words "significantly different". Well written and concise. Susan On Jul 12, 2015, at 10:21 PM, Eva Ulz <wrote: Dear Fellow Jack House Folks: I've attached a draft letter (based on comments from Kathi and James about the proposed San Luis Square project) that will be presented to the ARC and CHC before their joint meeting tomorrow evening. In addition, Kathi plans to read the letter aloud during public comment, and I (and hopefully some of you too) will be there to help her field any questions about our position. Please take a moment tonight (Sunday) or tomorrow morning (Monday) to read through the letter and let me know about anything I've missed, or if you have any concerns with what we are saying. We need to email this letter to the ARC and CHC before the afternoon, so please get me your comments ASAP, or by 11 am at the absolute latest. Many thanks, Eva JHC to ARC & CHC.pdf> From:Ansolabehere, Jon To:James Papp Bcc:Murry, Kim Subject:RE: Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 11:53:34 AM Attachments:image001.png James, Thank you for your e-mails. You are obviously very passionate about these issues, which is great. I think it would be best to talk in person. Unfortunately, I cannot meet today so let me know when you are available once you are back from Santa Cruz. Jon From: James Papp [mailto: Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:42 AM To: Ansolabehere, Jon Subject: Re: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Jon, Attached are my preparatory notes for the joint CHC ARC meeting 13 July,written after I had analyzed the proposal and talked to interested parties but before the meeting.During the meeting,hearing additional information from the applicant,I cut some of these comments out from my oral comments,as they had been dealt with,but I did email this version to Ken Schwartz after the meeting. Ken referenced my analysis of the project in a letter to CHC and ARC members before the meeting.Whether he was forwarded one of my emails to the Docents and Friends or my email to the JHC,I don't know.I had not communicated directly with Ken till he copied me his letter to the CHC and ARC upon sending it to the Community Development Department a few days before the meeting. On rereading your excerpts from the Nasha v. City of LA,some questions occur to me. 1.What was the timeline of the Planning Commission decision in that case,and was this a factor in the court's judgment?In the case of San Luis Square,once the proposal was published and also presented to JHC,I informed interested parties of my analysis of its adherence to the Community Design Guidelines.After the first hearing and directions being given by ARC and CHC for modifications,I expressed to Docents and Friends that it would be necessary to fight for those modifications.That is an interest of Docents and Friends but also of CHC and ARC.I also discussed modifications to awnings,for instance)with John directly after the meeting. 2.Was the nature of the opinion a factor?Lucente was concerned about a wildlife corridor and presumably against the Multiview project being built at all.I'm in favor of San Luis Square's adherence to existing guidelines and have never advocated against the project itself, in fact I'm in favor of it—provided it follows the rules. 3.Was a public newsletter rather than private emails a factor?Or does a group email count as a newsletter?Putting all committee members'email correspondence,snail mail correspondence,telephone communication,and person-to-person communication under surveillance for opinions is going to be a slippery slope.The practical result will be less transparency.I have to say,I'm the only committee member or commissioner I've encountered who on your advice)ever bothers to state my affiliations and possible conflicts in meetings,and everyone else looks surprised when I do. 4.Was the LA City Planning Commission making a decision?As a committee rather than commission,CHC only comments and has no decision-making power. All that said,I think the decision in Nasha is problematic.Building review commissions or committees are not judicial but political bodies,appointed by councils that are also political bodies.They exist precisely to represent the interests of citizens or the general public and to serve as a governor on the vested interests of permanent staff and the financial interests of private parties.CHC's bylaws inlcude,teritiarily stated,1.c.)commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community cultural resources"but also,primarily stated,1.a) helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects,"which is what I do as Jack House Docents and Friends president.The CHC is,by its own bylaws,partial to resource preservation and partial to public interest.As for the Jack Gardens,it would be hard to find anyone in a small town impartial to the issue of preservation of a high-profile public space in the town center and impossible to find anyone uninvolved,as it is a publicly held resource,as well as San Luis Obispo's first public preservation project.We happen currently to have a majority of members on the CHC currently with close ties to the house,one of whom also has close ties to PB Companies. Early August is fine with me to meet,but best to have this worked out as soon as possible,e.g. if the decision is made that I can still be involved in the CHC's comments but would have to modify my outside communication,etc.We can always talk by phone before then.Once again, James From:Ansolabehere,Jon JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent:Friday,July 17,2015 10:19 AM To:James Papp Cc:Johnson,Derek;Murry,Kim;Leveille,Brian Subject:RE:Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House;this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr. Papp, How about the first week of August? Jon From: James Papp [mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:43 PM To: Ansolabehere, Jon Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: Re: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Jon, Thanks for your email.This clearly should be worked out,and whichever way the City Attorney's office decides it is fine with me personally,though philosophically I have a particular view,as you'll see if you read all the way through.I'll cover for your benefit and the others copied)all the bases here,as it's useful to lay issues out in writing;forward to you all other emails I've written on the topic à la Benghazi);and look forward to meeting you about it.Would Friday the 16th work?I'll be in New York all next week and Santa Cruz for much of the week after.My number is 1.As you know,I emailed to Brian to forward to the City Attorney before the July 13th meeting my status as Friends of the Jack House president,Jack House Docents president,and ex officio nonvoting)Jack House Committee member,as well as development chair at the History Center,in which capacity I helped organize an event to which John Belsher contributed though it did not benefit me directly,it benefited an organization in which I am interested).City Attorney determined I had no conflict based on personal financial interest). 2.At the Monday meeting I also publicly revealed all these statuses as well as my status as a friend of John Belsher's.In full disclosure,I also revealed that PB Companies had offered 250,000 to the Jack House if the project was built,which would potentially cause a conflict in my position as a formal supporter of the house,though not providing me any personal financial benefit. 3.The Jack House Committee has represented an opinion to the CHC and ARC on what it believes are the legalities of the proposed project.As a nonvoting member of the committee,I was able to vote neither for nor against this opinion,but I was part of the discussion and informed it with my analysis of the project as it had been presented to the JHC and my understanding of city guidelines. 4.Naturally the Docents and the Friends of the Jack House are going to have an interest in the project,as it affects the public resource they are dedicated to,and as their president,I have to inform,coordinate,and facilitate their individual and shared views and express my views as to 1)the current project proposal's conformation to city guidelines and 2)the process by which that is determined and how people or organizations interested in the process may influence it. 5.My communication to the Docents,Friends,Jack House Committee and everyone else interested has been the same,which is also what I expressed at the meeting on Monday night both as part of CHC deliberations and in subsequent conversation with John:that,analyzing the project proposal in its current form,it appears to me to violate certain specific sections of the Community Design Guidelines,and that everyone who has an interest has the right and responsibility to express their conclusion.Hence I encouraged Docents and Friends members to communicate to the CHC and ARC for the 13 July meeting but did not tell them what they should say. 6.At a subsequent 15 July meeting of Friends and Docents I chaired,the two groups tried to reach consensus on their views and how they should proceed to express them and bring them to the attention of PB Companies,CHC,ARC,the City Council,and the public. 7.FYI,I am,both personally and as a CHC member,neither in favor of nor against the project, indeed I hope something will be built at 570 and 590 Marsh and 581 Higuera,and I am as much in favor of John building it as anyone else,and have discussed with him privately the potential paseo to the Jack Gardens.But I believe anything built must conform to the city's Community Design Guidelines and CEQA, which my duty as a CHC member compels me to analyze and apply.I presume everyone on CHC and ARC,in the Community Development Department,and at PB Companies also wants the project to conform to the guidelines and CEQA,although I am not sure all these parties read the guidelines with as much attention or reach the same conclusions)as I do.This is the gloves-off fight I'll undertake and the mat that I'll go to on this and every project that comes before CHC,whether or not it has anything to do with a private property,a public accommodation,or a public accommodation e.g.,the Jack House)to which I have a formal connection. 8.I believe this is what citizen representative committees are for and why we're appointed by elected officials,very much political animals,who temporarily and conditionally cede us their powers.If I were president of the local Republicans or Democrats I would equally have views on growth or planning or what have you,and I would urge my organization's members to fight for their opinions.As well,as CHC members,we are charged with raising public interest and involvement in issues of cultural heritage. 9.In other words,my desire to apply the guidelines and promote community input into this process perceiving that without community input the guidelines are sometimes not rigorously applied)is equal and,I believe,identical as a CHC member,as Friends of the Jack House president,as Jack House Docents president,and as a Jack House Committee member. My expression to Ken Schwartz that,having fulfilled my deliberative function as a CHC member by analyzing a project proposal for its conformance to guidelines),I can fight for that conformance as a community leader as well,is not a chronological expression or an expression of exclusive roles.As a CHC member,I will fight for the guidelines to be enforced,and I want to encourage interested citizens to fight for that,whatever their conclusion.E.g., Chuck Crotser, who I know is in favor of the project proposal in its current form, has been included in all my Friends and Docents emails (he is a member of the Friends) and hence encouraged by me to fight for his views, too. As I say,however,if your office feels this view represents a conflict,I have no objection to recusal though the majority of the current CHC is involved with PB or the Jack House in one way or another,and recusing us all would be awkward;it is,as you know,a small and opinionated town). James From:Ansolabehere,Jon JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday,July 16,2015 4:40 PM To: Cc:Johnson,Derek;Murry,Kim;Leveille,Brian Subject:FW:Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House;this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr.Papp, I wanted to write you regarding your e-mail below and express my concern about your future participation in the CHC as it relates to this project.The underlying reason for my concern is that,in the quasi-judicial setting like a use permit),applicants have a due process right to an impartial decision maker and when there is evidence that one of those decision makers has an actual bias such that the person could not act as a reasonably impartial,non-involved reviewer,”then there is a conflict of interest.For example,in the case of Nasha v. City of Los Angeles,2004)125 CA 4th 470,the court of appeal determined that a developer’s procedural due process rights were violated because a one of the planning commissioners had an unacceptable probability of actual bias”regarding the proposed project.Specifically,in that case,a planning commission member authored a newsletter that strongly opposed a project that was going to come before the commission on appeal.The newsletter stated,in pertinent part: Multiview Drive Project Threat To Wildlife Corridor [¶] A proposed project taking five legal lots totaling 3.8 acres for five proposed large homes with swimming pools served by a common driveway off Multiview Drive is winding its way through the Planning process.... [¶] After wildlife leaves Briar Summit heading eastward they must either head south towards Mt. Olympus or north to the slopes above Universal City. The Multiview Drive site is an absolutely crucial habitat corridor. Please contact Paul Edelman with the Conservancy at 310/ ... or Mark Hennessy who lives adjacent to the project at 323/ ... if you have any questions.” Id at 484. The court determined that: Contrary to the position taken by Lucente, the newsletter article was not merely informational. The article clearly advocated a position against the project, which it characterized as a “threat to wildlife corridor.”Lucente's authorship of the newsletter article gave rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bias and was sufficient to preclude Lucente from serving as a “reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.” [Citations] Lucente clearly should have recused himself from hearing this matter. His participation in the appeal to the Planning Commission requires the Commission's decision be vacated.Id. This is not to say that a decision maker can’t express an opinion on a proposed project,and there are some cases which further qualify this issue,however,decision makers must be careful regarding their communications and must be sure to remain truly impartial regarding any decision which may come before them.Before I can say whether or not I think you might have a conflict of interest,I would like to know if the e-mail below is the extent of your communications regarding the proposed project.If you would like to meet and discuss this, please let me know.Thanks you.Jon Jon Ansolabehere Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E JAnsolabehere@slocity.org slocity.org From: James Papp [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Docents, Last night we had a long four-hour)and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens.As a reference point,the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.)All of our concerns are now on the agenda,as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC)and Architectural Review Commission ARC)to the developer.This was a conceptual review,"but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much.He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC.Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council.So there is a long process and I fear)fight ahead.Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC,to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response attached),and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni,Susan,Leah,Marilyn Forselles,and others for coming and showing their support.Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request,for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House:we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development,paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal,Sunday weddings,a Victorian sports program,and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least,you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two sent out Monday,I believe).There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus,and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchworkahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the current form included Kathi Settle on behalf of the Jack House Committee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went lastyeartoARCwithaproposalfor581Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need to do our own shading study, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:James Papp To:Ansolabehere, Jon Subject:Re: Last night"s meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening"s docents and friends meeting Date:Friday, July 17, 2015 11:42:27 AM Attachments:image001.png CHC ARC PB San Luis Square comments.docx Dear Jon, Attached are my preparatory notes for the joint CHC ARC meeting 13 July, written after I had analyzed the proposal and talked to interested parties but before the meeting. During the meeting, hearing additional information from the applicant, I cut some of these comments out from my oral comments, as they had been dealt with, but I did email this version to Ken Schwartz after the meeting. Ken referenced my analysis of the project in a letter to CHC and ARC members before the meeting. Whether he was forwarded one of my emails to the Docents and Friends or my email to the JHC, I don't know. I had not communicated directly with Ken till he copied me his letter to the CHC and ARC upon sending it to the Community Development Department a few days before the meeting. On rereading your excerpts from the Nasha v. City of LA, some questions occur to me. 1. What was the timeline of the Planning Commission decision in that case, and was this a factor in the court's judgment? In the case of San Luis Square, once the proposal was published and also presented to JHC, I informed interested parties of my analysis of its adherence to the Community Design Guidelines. After the first hearing and directions being given by ARC and CHC for modifications, I expressed to Docents and Friends that it would be necessary to fight for those modifications. That is an interest of Docents and Friends but also of CHC and ARC. I also discussed modifications (to awnings, for instance) with John directly after the meeting. 2. Was the nature of the opinion a factor? Lucente was concerned about a wildlife corridor and presumably against the Multiview project being built at all. I'm in favor of San Luis Square's adherence to existing guidelines and have never advocated against the project itself, in fact I'm in favor of it—provided it follows the rules. 3. Was a public newsletter rather than private emails a factor? Or does a group email count as a newsletter? Putting all committee members' email correspondence, snail mail correspondence, telephone communication, and person-to-person communication under surveillance for opinions is going to be a slippery slope. The practical result will be less transparency. I have to say, I'm the only committee member or commissioner I've encountered who (on your advice) ever bothers to state my affiliations and possible conflicts in meetings, and everyone else looks surprised when I do. 4. Was the LA City Planning Commission making a decision? As a committee rather than commission, CHC only comments and has no decision-making power. All that said, I think the decision in Nasha is problematic. Building review commissions or committees are not judicial but political bodies, appointed by councils that are also political bodies. They exist precisely to represent the interests of citizens or the general public and to serve as a governor on the vested interests of permanent staff and the financial interests of private parties. CHC's bylaws inlcude, teritiarily stated, (1.c.) "commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community cultural resources" but also, primarily stated, (1.a) helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects," which is what I do as Jack House Docents and Friends president. The CHC is, by its own bylaws, partial to resource preservation and partial to public interest. As for the Jack Gardens, it would be hard to find anyone in a small town impartial to the issue of preservation of a high-profile public space in the town center and impossible to find anyone uninvolved, as it is a publicly held resource, as well as San Luis Obispo's first public preservation project. We happen currently to have a majority of members on the CHC currently with close ties to the house, one of whom also has close ties to PB Companies. Early August is fine with me to meet, but best to have this worked out as soon as possible, e.g. if the decision is made that I can still be involved in the CHC's comments but would have to modify my outside communication, etc. We can always talk by phone before then. Once again, James From: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 10:19 AM To: James Papp Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: RE: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr. Papp, How about the first week of August? Jon From: James Papp [mailto:jamesralphpapp@.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:43 PM To: Ansolabehere, Jon Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: Re: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Jon, Thanks for your email. This clearly should be worked out, and whichever way the City Attorney's office decides it is fine with me personally, though philosophically I have a particular view, as you'll see if you read all the way through. I'll cover (for your benefit and the others copied) all the bases here, as it's useful to lay issues out in writing; forward to you all other emails I've written on the topic (à la Benghazi); and look forward to meeting you about it. Would Friday the 16th work? I'll be in New York all next week and Santa Cruz for much of the week after. My number is 1. As you know, I emailed to Brian to forward to the City Attorney before the July 13th meeting my status as Friends of the Jack House president, Jack House Docents president, and ex officio nonvoting) Jack House Committee member, as well as development chair at the History Center, in which capacity I helped organize an event to which John Belsher contributed (though it did not benefit me directly, it benefited an organization in which I am interested). City Attorney determined I had no conflict (based on personal financial interest). 2. At the Monday meeting I also publicly revealed all these statuses as well as my status as a friend of John Belsher's. In full disclosure, I also revealed that PB Companies had offered 250,000 to the Jack House if the project was built, which would potentially cause a conflict in my position as a formal supporter of the house, though not providing me any personal financial benefit. 3. The Jack House Committee has represented an opinion to the CHC and ARC on what it believes are the legalities of the proposed project. As a nonvoting member of the committee, I was able to vote neither for nor against this opinion, but I was part of the discussion and informed it with my analysis of the project as it had been presented to the JHC and my understanding of city guidelines. 4. Naturally the Docents and the Friends of the Jack House are going to have an interest in the project, as it affects the public resource they are dedicated to, and as their president, I have to inform, coordinate, and facilitate their individual and shared views and express my views as to 1) the current project proposal's conformation to city guidelines and (2) the process by which that is determined and how people or organizations interested in the process may influence it. 5. My communication to the Docents, Friends, Jack House Committee and everyone else interested has been the same, which is also what I expressed at the meeting on Monday night both as part of CHC deliberations and in subsequent conversation with John: that, analyzing the project proposal in its current form, it appears to me to violate certain specific sections of the Community Design Guidelines, and that everyone who has an interest has the right and responsibility to express their conclusion. Hence I encouraged Docents and Friends members to communicate to the CHC and ARC for the 13 July meeting but did not tell them what they should say. 6. At a subsequent 15 July meeting of Friends and Docents I chaired, the two groups tried to reach consensus on their views and how they should proceed to express them and bring them to the attention of PB Companies, CHC, ARC, the City Council, and the public. 7. FYI, I am, both personally and as a CHC member, neither in favor of nor against the project, indeed I hope something will be built at 570 and 590 Marsh and 581 Higuera, and I am as much in favor of John building it as anyone else, and have discussed with him privately the potential paseo to the Jack Gardens. But I believe anything built must conform to the city's Community Design Guidelines and CEQA, which my duty as a CHC member compels me to analyze and apply. I presume everyone on CHC and ARC, in the Community Development Department, and at PB Companies also wants the project to conform to the guidelines and CEQA, although I am not sure all these parties read the guidelines with as much attention (or reach the same conclusions) as I do. This is the gloves-off fight I'll undertake and the mat that I'll go to on this and every project that comes before CHC, whether or not it has anything to do with a private property, a public accommodation, or a public accommodation (e.g., the Jack House) to which I have a formal connection. 8. I believe this is what citizen representative committees are for and why we're appointed by elected officials, very much political animals, who temporarily and conditionally cede us their powers. If I were president of the local Republicans or Democrats I would equally have views on growth or planning or what have you, and I would urge my organization's members to fight for their opinions. As well, as CHC members, we are charged with raising public interest and involvement in issues of cultural heritage. 9. In other words, my desire to apply the guidelines and promote community input into this process (perceiving that without community input the guidelines are sometimes not rigorously applied) is equal and, I believe, identical as a CHC member, as Friends of the Jack House president, as Jack House Docents president, and as a Jack House Committee member. My expression to Ken Schwartz that, having fulfilled my deliberative function as a CHC member (by analyzing a project proposal for its conformance to guidelines), I can fight for that conformance as a community leader as well, is not a chronological expression or an expression of exclusive roles. As a CHC member, I will fight for the guidelines to be enforced, and I want to encourage interested citizens to fight for that, whatever their conclusion. E.g., Chuck Crotser, who I know is in favor of the project proposal in its current form, has been included in all my Friends and Docents emails (he is a member of the Friends) and hence encouraged by me to fight for his views, too. As I say, however, if your office feels this view represents a conflict, I have no objection to recusal (though the majority of the current CHC is involved with PB or the Jack House in one way or another, and recusing us all would be awkward; it is, as you know, a small and opinionated town). James From: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 4:40 PM To: Cc: Johnson, Derek; Murry, Kim; Leveille, Brian Subject: FW: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Mr. Papp, I wanted to write you regarding your e-mail below and express my concern about your future participation in the CHC as it relates to this project. The underlying reason for my concern is that, in the quasi-judicial setting (like a use permit), applicants have a due process right to an impartial decision maker and when there is evidence that one of those decision makers has an actual bias such that the person could not act as a "reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer,” then there is a conflict of interest. For example, in the case of Nasha v. City of Los Angeles, (2004) 125 CA 4th 470, the court of appeal determined that a developer’s procedural due process rights were violated because a one of the planning commissioners had an unacceptable probability of actual bias” regarding the proposed project. Specifically, in that case, a planning commission member authored a newsletter that strongly opposed a project that was going to come before the commission on appeal. The newsletter stated, in pertinent part: Multiview Drive Project Threat To Wildlife Corridor [¶] A proposed project taking five legal lots totaling 3.8 acres for five proposed large homes with swimming pools served by a common driveway off Multiview Drive is winding its way through the Planning process.... [¶] After wildlife leaves Briar Summit heading eastward they must either head south towards Mt. Olympus or north to the slopes above Universal City. The Multiview Drive site is an absolutely crucial habitat corridor. Please contact Paul Edelman with the Conservancy at 310/ ... or Mark Hennessy who lives adjacent to the project at 323/ ... if you have any questions.” Id at 484. The court determined that: Contrary to the position taken by Lucente, the newsletter article was not merely informational. The article clearly advocated a position against the project, which it characterized as a “threat to wildlife corridor.”Lucente's authorship of the newsletter article gave rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bias and was sufficient to preclude Lucente from serving as a “reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.” [Citations] Lucente clearly should have recused himself from hearing this matter. His participation in the appeal to the Planning Commission requires the Commission's decision be vacated. Id. This is not to say that a decision maker can’t express an opinion on a proposed project, and there are some cases which further qualify this issue, however, decision makers must be careful regarding their communications and must be sure to remain truly impartial regarding any decision which may come before them. Before I can say whether or not I think you might have a conflict of interest, I would like to know if the e-mail below is the extent of your communications regarding the proposed project. If you would like to meet and discuss this, please let me know. Thanks you. Jon Jon Ansolabehere Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E JAnsolabehere@slocity.org slocity.org From: James Papp [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:13 PM To: Toni Kincaid; katchy andrews; Jean whitaker; penny rappa; marilyn darnell; wanda friesen; Ron Batterson; marilyn forselles; pam hurd; barbara jaurequi; maureen titus; ursula campbell; lois crotser; bryant mills; esther mcguire; Robert Gordon; carol whitaker; wendy stockton; Wallace, Christine; kathi settle; Stanwyck, Shelly; susan updegrove; doug koel; judith collins; Riley R&C; dana hughes; betty stockton; nancy jackson; chris oswald; eva ulz; chuck crotser; leah walthert; Subject: Last night's meeting on the PB proposal next to the Jack House; this evening's docents and friends meeting Dear Docents, Last night we had a long (four-hour) and grueling meeting on John Belsher's PB Companies proposal to build a 60-foot and a 56-foot building next to the Jack Gardens. (As a reference point, the Anderson Hotel is 59 feet tall without the tower.) All of our concerns are now on the agenda, as having been included in directional items by the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC) and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to the developer. This was a "conceptual review," but the developer actually has a very detailed plan that I suspect he will not want to change very much. He will have to come back for a preliminary review to the CHC and such number of additional reviews as necessary and then proceed to the ARC. Any decision can also be appealed to the City Council. So there is a long process and (I fear) fight ahead. Heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Darnell and Maureen for writing to the CHC and ARC, to Eva for drafting and Kathi for delivering the Jack House Committee response (attached), and to Penny for speaking at the meeting and Toni, Susan, Leah, Marilyn Forselles, and others for coming and showing their support. Below is a long description of the meeting and its result I sent to Ken Schwartz at his request, for any policy wonks among you. A quick reminder of the combined friends and docents meeting at 4:30 today at the Jack House: we'll be talking about where we go from here with the proposed next-door development, paying for the private contribution to the elevator shaft removal, Sunday weddings, a Victorian sports program, and our involvement in SLO Souls. Last but not least, you should be getting the newsletter in a day or two (sent out Monday, I believe). There is a lot in it about the Jack Piano that attempts to expand on the scholarship Marilyn Darnell has already published on that fascinating subject in the Journal Plus, and I just wanted to give credit to that scholarship here. James Dear Ken, The meeting went on for four hours, which is why I didn't write last night, and itendedwithlessclarityorfirmnessthanyouorIwouldlikeandthepromiseofmuchworkahead. Twenty members of the public spoke, 15 in favor of the project and 5 against it initscurrentform. The 15 in favor were largely Belsher colleagues and students fromanarchitectureclassthathadworkedononeofhisprojects, but he alsohadSupervisorAdamHillandMikeManchakoftheEVC. Speakers against the currentformincludedKathiSettleonbehalfoftheJackHouseCommittee, Penny Rappa, andJamesLopesofSaveOurDowntown. The disparity in numbers, and the lack ofalarge, impassioned, and vocal crowd against the project in its current form, wasbroughtupbyandinfluencedARCmembers. The history of the project so far is that ARC at some time in the past (pre-recession?) approved a four-story project at 590 Marsh (at the corner of Nipomo) thatnevergotbuiltbutwhoseapprovalseemsgrandfatheredin, then Belsher went last year to ARC with a proposal for 581 Higuera (which overlaps the Jack Garden by aboutathird) asking for approval at 60 feet high. At that time ARC told him to take a floor offandbringitunderthezoned50feetandcomebackwiththewholethree-building project. Coming back with the three-building project, he not only didn't take a floor offbutexpandedthefourthfloorof581fromapenthousetotakeupvirtuallythewholefootprint. 570 (next to the Jack Gardens) and 590 are at 56 feet. Though this was a"conceptual design review" and not an initial review, clearly PB Companies hastheprojectextensivelyplannedout. CHC had a discussion and passed a motion, and ARC had a discussion and passedamotion. I've asked Brian Leveille at Community Development to get them to me assoonashecan, because they ended up being a vast laundry list of concerns, includingtrulycrucialones (protection of light- and viewshed for the Jack Gardens), marginal ones (typeofcladdingontheelevatorshaft), and entirely irrelevant ones. I proposed a motionforCHC (attached, along with my comments last night) which did not get support, possiblybecauseitwastootechnicallyandspecificallyexpressed, but ultimately just abouteveryissueIincludedinitwaslistedasaconcerninCHC's and ARC's motions, includingayear-round shading effect report for the Jack Gardens and a floor possibly taken offof570Marsh). Most important, and against the will of staff, ARC agreed that theprojectshouldgobacktoCHCfirst. My major concern is this. ARC previously sent PB Companies away with a veryspecificinstructionwhichPBnotonlyignoredbutmadeworse (the fourth floor on 581 Higuera).Last night, though some members expressed concern about the height, largely theARCfellalloverthemselvestoexpresshowtheprojectwasgoingintherightdirection. Thus,with this incredibly long list of directions distracting from the few of major importance,and with ARC showing it has no teeth, I think Belsher thinks he's won. He hasn't, by a long shot, because now that the project has been presented to the CHC,and I've fulfilled my function of deliberative judgment as a CHC member, I feel I cantakemyglovesoffandfightasJackHouseDocentandFriendspresident. We need toboildownourargumentandgetalargenumberofpeopleto (very literally with apetitionandletters) sign on to it; we need to get the Parks and Recreation Commission on board,as abrogating the protections for one city park will threaten all city parks; we need todoourownshadingstudy, tree study, and conceptual images of what the project willlooklikefromtheJackGardens; we need to do a press campaign; and we need to doalobbyingcampaignwithotherorganizations, the CHC, the ARC, and the City Council. Wealsoneedtopresentavisionofwhatthatneighborhoodshouldlooklikeandwhatprotectionsitshouldhave. I know John Ashbaugh would like to extend theDowntownHistoricDistricttoincludethatareaofMarsh, and I would like it to extend alongthatareaofHiguera, justified by the number of Master List and potential Master ListandContributingListbuildings. I had a long talk with John Belsher after the meeting, and I think (I may be wrong) thatthebeststrategywillbetoworkwithhimtonegotiatewhatwecanbeforeitgoesbacktoCHCandARC, letting him know we're will to go to the mat on this. Friends of theJackHouseandJackHouseDocentswilltalkaboutthisatameetingtonight. James From:Cohen, Rachel To:Jenny Emrick; Rex Steward (rex@pbcompanies.co) Cc:Wheeler, Bryan Subject:SLS Transportation Study Date:Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:05:13 PM Attachments:image002.png Hi Jenny and Rex- I am following up on the status of the fee for the transportation study. We have a consultant ready to begin the study, however they cannot start until we have received payment. Can you inform me and Bryan of your status. Thanks, Rachel Cohen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org From: Jenny Emrick [mailto:jenny@pbcompanies.co] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:58 PM To: Cohen, Rachel Subject: San Luis Square ARC Submittal Update Rachel, It was great seeing you at the workshop – it was such a cool experience! Glad I got to go. I wanted to try and talk to you earlier at the workshop but didn’t have a chance to get to you. We recently found out that Arts Obispo doesn’t want to put the Annie’s Dance sculpture in our downtown project paseo, they think it’s too cramped and would rather have the piece placed on another one of our projects. Arts Obispo is still going to work with us to find a piece that fits better within our downtown project, but we are currently showing “Annie’s Dance” on all the materials we submitted to you, which is now incorrect. Should we update the materials and provide you with new packets, or simply explain at the hearing that the public art has changed? On this note, I also wanted to follow up with the submittal package in general and see what you think. We want to provide you with the information that helps you the most, so if there is anything additional you think we should add, or anything that needs clarification, etc… it would be extremely helpful to hear it. We have additional renderings, floor plans, and exhibits and we didn’t know if providing you with more information would be helpful or not. I’m not sure when your deadline to produce your staff report is, but I’m available to meet with you to discuss if needed. As the applicant, we want to provide anything you need to help you with your recommendation. Also, are we getting any closer to scheduling a date for the hearing? Thank you, and talk to you soon, Jenny Emrick Project Manager PB Companies 3480 South Higuera St., Ste. 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 540-3330 x 330 Email: jenny@pbcompanies.co This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.If you are not the intended addressee,or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee,you are hereby notified that reading,disseminating,distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake,please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter.